Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.
The Amendments on the Paper are necessary to take account of the provisions of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, which, as the House knows, received the Royal Assent in August.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made:
Standing Order 156A, line 7, at end add "or in Scotland a burgh".
Standing Order 156A, line 16, at end add "as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956".
Standing Order 156B, line 6, after "1948" insert "or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956".
Standing Order 156B, line 15, at end add "or section five of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as so amended
Standing Order 156B, line 21, after "Government" insert "or the Secretary of State".
Standing Order 191, line 14, at end add "as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956".

—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Private Street Works, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) in respect of applications for loan sanction for private street works from Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, what local inquiries have been made by inspectors of his Department about the dangers to health and safety arising from the present state of these streets ; and with what results ;
(2) the total value of loans for which Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council have asked for sanction in respect of private street works since the beginning of the year ; and what amount and proportion he has approved.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Since the beginning of this year, the borough council has applied for loan sanctions totalling £7,120 for private street works. All were initially rejected, but renewed applications in respect of three roads, said to be in particularly bad condition, are now under consideration, and in this connection a visit will shortly be made by one of my right hon. Friend's engineering inspectors.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Member aware that my constituents are absolutely fed up with this situation and that in Newcastle-under-Lyme we have a terrible Tory legacy of privately-owned and neglected streets which require to be made up and brought under public control? Will he, therefore, pay particular attention to this situation because, irrespective of party politics, my constituents are unanimously agreed that these streets are an urgent priority?

Mr. Powell: Local authorities are entitled and are indeed invited to bring to my right hon. Friend's attention particular cases of streets the need for the making up of which is urgent.

Capital Expenditure (Restrictions)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further consultations he has had since 30th July with representatives of local


authority associations on the subject of restrictions on capital expenditure ; and what action he is taking in response to their representations.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): At a meeting with representatives of the local authority associations in July, I explained the necessity for the continuance of these restrictions for the present. Since then I have received no further approaches from them on this subject.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that members of local authorities all over the country feel that works which are urgent and necessary in the national interest are being frustrated by this financial policy ; that, irrespective of party control of local councils, a majority in important local authority associations is opposed to his policy? Will he, therefore, initiate discussions with representatives of those councils who feel that a more discriminating concern about their interests is necessary?

Mr. Sandys: Local authorities are responsible for nearly one-quarter of the capital expenditure of the country. Most authorities recognise that they must make their contribution to winning the battle against inflation.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman not yet able to put a time limit on these restrictions, which were said to be temporary and of which many are petty and irritating to local authorities?

Smog

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in protecting the people against the harmful effects of smog this winter ; what Government Departments are co-operating in this work ; and in what way the public, local authorities, radio and television services and industry are being asked to cooperate with a view to the maximum effort being made to avoid a repetition of the heavy toll of deaths and sickness of recent years from this form of visitation.

Mr. Sandys: Since the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dodds: If we get weather conditions similar to those of the winter of 1951–52, is there any likelihood of the results being less tragic than they then were, because of the progress made since then?

Mr. Sandys: I should be a very rash man if I were to forecast the effects of future weather conditions. I will say only that there has been an intensive effort to bring this policy into effect, but the implementation of the policy behind the Clean Air Act, which we passed early this Session, is obviously a matter which will take a number of years, although we are getting on with it.

Mr. Hastings: Will the Minister, as soon as possible, make a statement about the possibility of minimising the effects of smog on health in homes by the use of ammonia? There have been experiments. The method is simple and could be of very great advantage during the coming winter, if we get smog.

Mr. Sandys: Naturally we have all these points in mind, and I should be glad if the hon. Member will study the detailed reply which I am circulating in HANSARD.

Following is the reply :
The only sure protection against the ill effects of smog is prevention of air pollution. This cannot be accomplished all at once, but will require a sustained effort by all sections of the community over a number of years.
Since last winter, progress towards this objective has been marked by the passing of the Clean Air Act, which provides the legislative framework for an intensive attack on pollution by smoke, grit and dust from all sources. Government Departments and other bodies concerned, including the Medical Research Council, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the fuel industries are actively co-operating.
An Order under the Act will shortly be laid before Parliament specifying the appointed day for those provisions which relate to smoke control areas, new furnaces, the height of chimneys, the appointment of Clean Air Councils, and certain other matters.
It is intended that the remaining provisions of the Act, which deal with emissions of dark smoke, grit and dust from industrial premises, railway engines and vessels, should be brought into force in the early part of 1958.
Meanwhile, arrangements have again been made for warnings to be broadcast by the B. B. C. this winter, if and when persistent fog is forecast, with advice to the public about the steps they should take. Householders and industry will be asked to take special care to minimise smoke during periods of fog

Industrial Derating

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further consideration has been given to the ending of industrial derating ; and what action has been decided upon to remedy this situation.

Mr. Sandys: This problem is being examined, as part of the comprehensive review of local government finance which is being undertaken.

Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister be a little more specific and say whether there is any likelihood of the present unsatisfactory conditions continuing for a very long period?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that it would be a good thing for us to announce piecemeal our conclusions upon various parts of this very comprehensive review.

Wealdstone Brook (Flooding)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that during heavy rain in recent weeks the Wealdstone Brook has overflowed to such an extent that the foundations of houses in Brook Drive, Wembley, have been flooded ; and if he will now grant loan sanction for the necessary improvements to be carried out.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend is aware of continued complaints about the flooding of the brook. The Middlesex County Council, which is discussing its improvement scheme with the Wembley Council, has not yet applied for loan sanction.

Mr. Russell: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the reasons the council has not yet applied for loan sanction is that it has not thought that it would get it if it did? Will he give some encouragement to the authority to make an application?

Mr. Powell: The initiative lies with the county council, and clearly an application cannot be judged until the scheme has been seen.

Essex Development Plan

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to approve the County Development Plan of Essex, with or without modification.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend cannot yet give a date when the Essex Development Plan will be approved. A number of important matters are still under consideration, and when these are settled the preparation of the necessary maps will take several months to complete.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that the redevelopment of the old town of Harwich is being held up because, under the 1947 Act, the Minister cannot authorise approval for a compulsory purchase order in advance of the approval of the county plan as a whole, with or without modifications? Will he assure us that he will therefore take all steps to see that the development of what is known as No. 1 Area, Harwich, is not held up by the Government on account of any red tape?

Mr. Powell: There is no reason why the borough council's plans for redevelopment should be held up by the fact that the development plan as a whole has not been approved. The council has been advised that it can submit the necessary compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that many other counties besides Essex are experiencing similar difficulties?

Mr. Powell: I have just explained that the particular difficulty which my hon. Friend raised does not in fact exist—and that will probably be found to be so in the other cases.

Road Tunnel Project, Oxford

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the length and diameter of the tunnel under Christchurch Meadow, Oxford, which is estimated to cost £7 million to build and £100,000 a year to maintain ; and how this compares with the cost of other similar tunnels.

Mr. Sandys: The estimate was for an underground by-pass which, including approaches, would be about one mile in length. It was assumed that the carriageways would, in part, have to be accommodated in separate tubes. The estimate is comparable with the cost of tunnel works elsewhere.

Mr. Dugdale: Has the Minister considered the example of the United States whereby part at least of the cost of such tunnels is defrayed by a charge on those using them?

Mr. Sandys: I have been asked about the cost of the tunnel, not how to pay for it.

Festival of Wales Committee (Members' Expenses)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will sanction the payment by local authorities of the expenses of members attending committee meetings of the Festival of Wales Committee.

Mr. Powell: Yes, on applications being made by the local authorities concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Programmes

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent local authorities have reduced their house-building programme this year owing to the reduction of the housing subsidies.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave last Tuesday to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes).

Mr. Jeger: As I have not had the opportunity of seeing that reply, can the Minister give some indication about the way in which the ordinary house-building programme has decreased owing to the necessity for local authorities to concentrate on slum clearance houses? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that means that people living in houses which are not designated slums have little chance of getting a council house from now onwards?

Mr. Sandys: It is the Government's deliberate policy to encourage greater emphasis on slum clearance, and that is taking place. Of course, if within any programme more effort is given to one part of the programme, less effort is given to some other part.

Manchester

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that Manchester's potential house-building programme is now having to be reduced because building sites outside the city are not available to the extent necessary; if he has completed his consideration of Manchester's housing problem ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the Manchester Corporation has been obliged to reduce its house-building programme for 1956 to an estimated 1,350; that this reduction has been imposed upon it by shortage of suitable sites; and whether he will now say what sites he proposes to allow the corporation to develop to meet its urgent housing needs.

Mr. H. Lever: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has come to any decision on the question of the provision of suitable areas for development designed to deal with Manchester's overspill problem.

Mr. Sandys: I am, of course, well aware of this problem. A few days ago I received a letter from Manchester Corporation stressing its need for one or more large sites for comprehensive development outside the city, and asking for my advice. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent Manchester constituencies appreciate the very fair and thorough way in which he has gone into this difficult problem? At the same time, we are gravely disturbed at the way in which Manchester's housing programme is being slowed down through a lack of suitable sites?

Mr. Sandys: What my hon. Friend gave with one hand he took away with the other.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that slum clearance, about which he professes to be so concerned, is in fact being held up at this moment in the City of Manchester and in other great areas because of the inordinate time he is taking to consider this matter? Is he further aware that, despite what the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson)


says, there is mounting exasperation in the City of Manchester about the delays and dilatoriness that he has shown in the past?

Mr. Sandys: It is no use talking about "the delays and dilatoriness" which I have shown in this matter. It is a matter which involves agreement being reached between a number of local authorities—the exporting authorities and the receiving authorities, including both county councils and the local district councils concerned. I think everybody will agree that agreement is desirable. It is a very complicated business, and it has involved many discussions. I did not think it was right to rush matters.
I have been to Manchester and the various areas all around. I have had two or three meetings with Manchester and county councils and local authorities separately and together, and I have really explored this matter very fully. I think those efforts were necessary, for nobody has suggested that it is not desirable to try to arrive at agreement. We have now reached the point where I think it is right for the Government to state their view on the whole problem.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport: In settling this difficult problem, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will follow the principles and policy laid down not only by his predecessor but by Her Majesty's Government, that not one acre of good agricultural land will be destroyed where other land of less agricultural value is available? Will he also follow the Cheshire County Development Plan, which goes a long way towards housing Manchester's overspill? Above all, will he see that Manchester develops its own sites properly first?

Mr. Sandys: I will study my hon. and gallant Friend's statement in HANSARD. Meanwhile, I do not propose to lay down any broad principles in reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman himself responsible for starting new towns? Is it not about time that he exercised that responsibility in order to relieve Manchester and other huge towns which have similar problems?

Mr. Sandys: This particular controversy has not been over the question of a new town but over the provision of some

large site outside Manchester upon which comprehensive building could take place.

Mr. Lever: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while he takes time to come to a decision Manchester's housing programme is necessarily held up? Will he bear this fact continuously in mind with a view to coming to an early decision upon the matter?

Mr. Sandys: That is just what I have said.

Lists, London

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that local authorities in the London area have either closed or propose to close their housing lists ; and what action he proposes to take in view of the distress caused thereby to many applicants for rehousing.

Mr. Sandys: Local authorities must be allowed to decide for themselves how best to handle applications for houses in their areas.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a deliberate result of Government policy about 165,000 applicants on the L. C. C. housing lists, for example, have no prospect whatever of being rehoused at all, and that slum clearance will help only a very small proportion of them? Has the Minister any conscience at all in the matter?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what action the hon. and gallant Member has in mind but if, as I suspect, he is referring to the financial aspects of housing, such as subsidies, interest rates and so forth, all I can say is that, in so far as London authorities are reducing their house-building programmes, it is due primarily not to financial reasons but to lack of land on which to build.

Exposed Walls (Weatherproofing)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that where the walls of a house have been exposed through the demolition of the house next door by a local authority, deterioration is often caused by exposure to the weather ; and if he will introduce legislation to provide for compensation to the tenant or make it an


obligation that the party walls so exposed shall be made weatherproof by those who demolish the neighbouring house.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no reason to doubt that local authorities are already fulfilling their reasonable obligations in this matter.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the local authority is not under an obligation to put the wall right, that the house is deteriorating, that in a very short time the person living in it will have to be turned out, and that the council will have to find alternative accommodation for the tenant? Will the Minister give power to local authorities to deal with these matters and reimburse them for any money spent in this connection?

Mr. Powell: Although the hon. Member says that the local authority has no obligation to make good, it has the power to do so, and most local authorities engaged on slum clearance do carry out the necessary work of protection.

Council Tenants (Restrictions)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will circularise local authorities with a view to the removal of unnecessary restrictions imposed on council tenants.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider that a general circular on this subject is called for.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that far too many local authorities impose fussy, niggling restrictions upon council tenants, such as in respect of domestic pets, television aerials and a lot of other things? Has not the time come for the Government to encourage a little more of the freedom about which they talk so much?

Mr. Powell: It would be wrong to issue a general circular to local authorities, a large number of which are administering their housing estates perfectly reasonably. Public opinion makes itself very swiftly and effectively felt where there is any unreasonable action.

Workers (Rehousing)

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what arrangements are contemplated for the rehousing of workers who are obliged to

take jobs which are beyond daily travelling distance of their present homes.

Mr. Powell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) on 12th June, 1956.

Mr. Lee: Is it not a fact that the Government have said that they accept responsibility for the changes which will take place in industry, and how is it possible for local authorities to know precisely what mechanisation will mean in the way of people coming into their areas unless they have a Government lead on the matter? Will the hon. Gentleman cooperate with the Minister of Labour in trying to deal with the problem?

Mr. Powell: The principal consideration in the rehousing of those who have to move must be the building of houses, which is still going ahead at a rate never reached by the previous Administration.

Regular Ex-Service Men

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what has been the result of his circular to local authorities about the allocation of council houses to Regular ex-Service men.

Mr. Sandys: In a circular issued in March, 1955, I recommended local authorities to relax residential qualifications for Regular ex-Service men who apply for council houses. About 1,330 housing authorities have informed me that they have adopted this policy. In addition, about a hundred authorities have agreed, subject to certain qualifications. Only thirty have sent me wholly negative answers. I am glad to say that my Department is now receiving very few complaints on this subject.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: A very satisfactory Answer. Would my right hon. Friend consider some other method of bringing pressure to bear on those thirty recalcitrant authorities whose sympathy, apparently, for those people who fight for their country does not appear to be as acute as that of other authorities?

Mr. Sandys: I have that in mind.

Platt Fields, Manchester

Mr. H. Lever: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he sanctioned the use of four acres of


land at Platt Fields, Manchester, for the building of regional offices for the British Broadcasting Corporation when this land was regarded as suitable for housing development by the Manchester Corporation, whose building programme is hampered by the shortage of suitable land within the city's boundaries.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he sanctioned for use by the British Broadcasting Corporation as offices four acres of land opposite Platt Fields, Manchester, in view of the need for housing development in the city and that this land was well suited for that purpose.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend gave full consideration to the Manchester Corporation's view that this land ought to be used for private enterprise housing. But it had been in the market for several years without attracting a purchaser ; and, in face of the B. B. C.'s urgent need and in the absence of any alternative site immediately available, he did not feel justified in rejecting the B. B. C. 's application.

Mr. Lever: In view of the fact that the B. B. C. 's supposed urgent need is extremely questionable to anyone who thinks about, and looks at, the empty sites in the centre of Manchester, will the Minister look at this matter again, because the temporary absence of a purchaser for this ideal building land for housing should not be allowed to result in its permanent devotion to office space for which there is plenty of room elsewhere in the city? Will the Minister look at the matter again, having regard to his own constant lament about the shortage of suitable land for housing development in the centre of towns such as Manchester?

Mr. Powell: This is not, in fact, entirely a residential area, and by moving to this site the B. B. C. will be enabled to vacate eleven other sites at present used by it in Manchester.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that this site is opposite one of Manchester's biggest public parks and is in an overwhelmingly residential area? How can the Minister justify his constant urging of local authorities, such as Manchester, to use their existing sites before they come to him with their overspill

problems, when he allows this sort of thing?

Mr. Powell: This is not a site which the Manchester Corporation had any intention of using.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Disabled Persons (Report)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Labour when the Piercy Committee on Disabled Persons will present its Report.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Report has been received and is to be published on 1st November. The Government are grateful for this comprehensive Report, and will consider its recommendations in consultation with the standing advisory bodies concerned. I and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health would like to thank Lord Piercy and the members of his Committee for their careful study of the complex questions involved.

Mr. Evans: While endorsing the compliments paid by the Minister to the members of the Committee, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will arrange with the Leader of the House for us to have a comprehensive debate, not only on the Piercy Committee's Report, but on the whole background of disabled persons and their welfare? Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage any new legislation or Statutory Instruments in regard to the Report?

Mr. Macleod: The first part of the supplementary question is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House, but I will bring to his attention what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is too early yet to know whether legislation in any form will or will not be required until consultations have been carried out with the different advisory bodies concerned.

Dame Irene Ward: Can I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that this Report will not go the way of the Phillips Report?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Dock Labour Board, Liverpool (Disabled Persons)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the National Dock Labour Board at Liverpool has dismissed handicapped persons without due cause ; if he will ascertain to what extent this will bring it below its quota under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944 ; and if he will take the appropriate action.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): Three cases of the discharge of registered disabled persons by the Dock Labour Board in Liverpool have been brought to my attention. The percentage of disabled persons in the total of daily workers and staff on the Board's books was about 2·7 per cent. as compared with 3 per cent. prescribed under the Act, and my officers have taken up the matter with the Board.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware of the very grave disquiet caused by this very bad example of a great corporation with regard to disabled persons? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I have a list in my hand of cases of dismissals of a most arbitrary character, and will he take steps to consult the Dock Labour Board about the possibility of alternative employment for persons who have been so dismissed? Some of the cases are quite amazing. Will the Minister consult the Dock Labour Board with a view to seeing that, in future, a mere medical certificate is not sufficient to describe a man as unemployable? Regard ought to be had to whether such a man is a danger to himself or a potential danger to his workmates before such drastic action is taken.

Mr. Carr: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend's officers will keep in the closest touch with the Board to ensure that it employs its full proportion of disabled people.

Colliery Closure, Thorne

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the closing of the colliery at Thorne has created a special problem of unemployment for the partially-disabled and the older miners ; and whether he will take

special steps to find further employment for these men.

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir. My local officers will give these men all possible help in finding other employment.

Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that the figures for mid-September give 1,825 men as being wholly unemployed and 3,000 as temporarily stopped in Coventry ; that the number of vacancies for men was 700 ; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this situation ;
(2) whether he is aware that the figures for mid-September give 794 women as being wholly unemployed and 58 as temporarily stopped in Coventry ; that the number of vacancies for women was 170 ; that, while 500 women are looking for jobs for the first time, it does mean that if all these vacancies were filled 682 women would still want work ; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this situation.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Figures for mid-October show that the number of men registered as wholly unemployed in Coventry has decreased by nearly 300. As regards women, the employment position is more difficult, particularly since the majority of the women are married and their mobility, therefore, is limited. In addition to the 709 vacancies for men mentioned by the hon. Member, there are another 1,300 vacancies within a radius of twelve miles of the city. My local offices will continue their efforts to place these workers in employment.

Miss Burton: While I welcome this improvement in the position in relation to men, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the position has got worse so far as women are concerned? Is he further aware that if we took the wholly unemployed figures for men, and if those wholly unemployed men filled all the vacancies available, we should still have 843 men in Coventry without jobs? Is he aware that if we took the corresponding figures for women, we should have 679 women without jobs? While appreciating the work that his Ministry has done in Coventry—and I pay tribute to


it—may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can offer further help in the matter?

Mr. Macleod: With respect, I think that the hon. Lady is assuming that because someone has a house in Coventry, or in any other town, he can work only in that town. I do not think that follows at all, and particularly is it not true of Coventry, where there are large surrounding conurbations. In this instance, as I have said, there are no fewer than 1,300 vacancies in the immediate neighbourhood of Coventry, twice as many as there are in the city itself. Of course, we shall do everything we can, and I am glad to endorse the tribute which the hon. Lady has paid. I do not pretend that it is not a difficult problem, particularly for married women.

Miss Burton: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman—because not all of his hon. Friends seem to understand—that I have talked to the unemployed men and women and it is not easy to pay fares to go to these jobs? There are real difficulties, and would he pay attention to that?

Mr. Macleod: I did not say that there were not difficulties, but it would be an impossible freezing of the labour force of this country if the premises in the question of the hon. Lady were accepted.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some of those unemployed in Coventry are unable to accept jobs elsewhere because the wage offered is insufficient to meet the cost of obligations and a home in Coventry while living elsewhere ; and if, therefore, he would be prepared to offer lodging allowances or some similar grant in such cases.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. The unemployment situation in Coventry and neighbouring areas is not such as to justify financial assistance from the Government of this kind.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that there are men in Coventry who definitely cannot afford, without help, to take a job in another town and keep their own home going in Coventry while they live elsewhere? Does not he agree that it would be cheaper for the Government financially, and better morally, to help these men to find jobs?

Mr. Macleod: The facilities available were detailed in an Answer of mine, I think in June, to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). Those facilities are available for areas where the employment position is considered extremely poor and there is very little prospect of employment being obtained. Coventry, where the percentage rate of unemployment is 1·3, cannot conceivably come within any such definition.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that where we have wholesale changes of the type that are now to take place in industry, it is the responsibility of the Government, not only to provide lodging allowances, but to make it possible for priorities to be given to displaced workers in the housing estates and areas into which they have to go in order to obtain employment?

Mr. Macleod: That is a very much bigger question. If the hon. Gentleman would care to follow out the logic of it, it would suggest that the Government should indicate who are to be at the top of local authority housing lists and that those who come in temporarily should have precedence over those who have established their position for many years.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not making that point at all? I am trying to make the point that the local authorities cannot possibly know how automation—or call it what we will—in industries within their area will affect the personnel who require houses, and that if the Government would accept responsibility for that, they would be acting more in line with the policy required.

Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Gentleman would study the available figures, such as they are, and in particular figures which I will send him, which are the figures that we know so far of B.M.C. dismissals, he will see that in fact this problem is nothing like as large as he and other hon. Members have suggested.

Fire Prevention Officers (Factory Visits)

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider extending the powers of factory inspectors so as to enable them to invite fire prevention officers to accompany them in their visits to factories.

Mr. Carr: We are encouraging joint visits to factories by inspectors and fire prevention officers. I do not think any extension of the powers of inspectors is needed to carry out this policy.

Mr. Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that where the employer does not invite the fire prevention officer to go into the factory, the factory inspector himself has not the power to insist on him going? Is he further aware that in the case of the Keighley incident, if this sort of thing had been possible it is quite probable that that tragic incident would never have happened ; and will he study again the implication of the Question?

Mr. Carr: What the hon. Gentleman requires to meet his point is not extra powers for factory inspectors, but extra powers for fire prevention officers, which is not a matter for my right hon. Friend but for the Home Secretary. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are on the point of issuing new instructions to encourage co-operation between these two sets of inspectors. I believe that with the new instructions the matter will work out and we shall get what we want by persuasion and without any more powers.

Radiation Hazards (Factory Inspectorate)

Mr. Neave: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the organisation of the Factory Inspectorate with regard to radiation hazards in industry.

Mr. Carr: The Factory Inspectorate includes at headquarters a physicist engaged full-time in advising the Inspectorate and industry on precautions to be taken. All factory inspectors are supplied with information on this subject. Fifteen have been to courses on radiological protection at Harwell and it is hoped a further six will be going in December. More will be going as opportunity offers. One engineering inspector is at present attending a course on the design of nuclear reactors. Inspectors, including medical inspectors as appropriate, make special visits to factories where there are known to be radiation hazards. The Inspectorate is informed by the Atomic Energy Authority of all firms to which radioisotopes are delivered.

Mr. Neave: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he pay particular attention to the training of engineer inspectors in this respect?

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir, I will keep that point in mind.

Wage Negotiation Machinery

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on his present policy regarding the machinery of wage negotiations.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Government continue to support the policy of leaving wages to be settled by joint negotiation between employers and workers.

Mr. Lee: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that it is now becoming more common for organisations of employers to give a blanket refusal to wage applications before they have even been heard? Is he aware that his function does not permit him to intervene until the full machinery in any industry has been used ; that this may mean that he would be quite powerless to intervene should a really big dispute take place in industry, and the ultimate result might be to weaken the whole machinery of negotiations on Which we pride ourselves?

Mr. Macleod: I should think it is implicit that organisations of employers and workpeople can issue what statements they like about wages. The function of the Government, as I see it, is to do what they can to make certain that such decisions as are taken are taken in full knowledge of the economic climate of the country. It is to that end that the decisions of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others have been directed.

Mr. Lee: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the statement issued by the British Employers' Confederation that from now on no wage application which result in increased costs will be considered? Does he not agree that it is calculated to weaken the machinery of negotiation, as trade unions must feel that it is ridiculous to go to negotiate upon an application which has already been refused? Does he not think that that sort of conduct cannot fail to weaken the spirit in which we want British industry to conduct itself, and which allows the right hon. Gentleman to come in at the end of negotiations when necessary?

Mr. Macleod: I note the point which the hon. Gentleman has made and I understand it perfectly well. It must follow from my Answer—and this is the accepted policy on both sides of the House—that there is no reason why I should either approve or criticise statements that the two sides of industry issue on wages, and I do neither.

Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were registered as unemployed at the Shotts Employment Exchange at the latest available date.

Mr. Iain Macleod: At 15th October, 1956, there were 246 unemployed persons on the registers of Shotts Employment Exchange and Youth Employment Office.

Miss Herbison: Will the Minister, who has some responsibility for finding work for these people, consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade in an attempt to get them to reverse their policy about the building of factories in Development Areas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) is considering building factories for rental because of the serious position in some of these areas?

Mr. Macleod: I am willing to have any consultations which will be helpful in that area or in any other area. I think the hon. Lady knows that the factory about which she questioned me before the Recess has now been leased and will in due course employ about 800 workers and thus make a very important contribution to employment in the area.

Stranraer

Mr. Mackie: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed at Stranraer on 1st October, 1956.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The unemployment count is taken only on a Monday, about the middle of each month. At 15th October there were 201 persons registered as unemployed at Stranraer Employment Exchange.

Mr. Mackie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable anxiety exists in this port, which was of very great importance in the last war, because of the

possible withdrawal of the daily steamer service between Stranraer and Larne and the ending of the direct railway communication with Glasgow and Girvan, which would doubtless lead to very considerable unemployment, in addition to that indicated by the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has already given.

Mr. Macleod: It is true that the increase in unemployment over the last year is mainly in the harbour, docks and allied services. The other questions go a good deal wider than my province but I am quite ready to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Where there is a potential increase in unemployment, as there is in the Stranraer area, does not the right hon. Gentleman think he should call for a report from his officers?

Mr. Macleod: Of course, I do call for reports from the officers, and it is on one of these that I have based my Answer to the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Personal Case

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds his Department refused to defer the call-up of an 18-year-old boy, of whom he has been informed, for National Service, having regard to the fact the boy's household consists of an invalid war-widowed mother, her invalid daughter of 17, an invalid son of 16, an epileptic son of 15 and three other children of school age and that another son of 21 is a Regular soldier.

Mr. Iain Macleod: This man's application for postponement was refused by a Military Service (Hardship) Committee. The Committee was fully constituted and there were no grounds for an appeal against its unanimous decision. Nevertheless, in view of the unusual circumstances of the case I am arranging for action to be suspended pending further examination.

Miss Bacon: Is the Minister aware that, while I thank him for the reply which he has now given, I had hoped that he could have given me a similar reply when I saw him at the end of July?


Is he aware that if this is not a hardship it is difficult to understand what is a hardship?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, but, with respect, this matter was most carefully considered by a duly constituted committee. Its decision was unanimous and I have no statutory authority to intervene, as I said to the hon. Lady at the end of July, and as she will remember. At the same time, what I am really saying now in my Answer is that although everybody carried out their duty faithfully and accurately yet—and this sometimes happens—the end result was completely unfair. That is why I have intervened as I have indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Forth Road Crossing

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet completed his study of the report by the panel of experts on whether the River Forth road crossing should be by a bridge or underwater tunnel ; and if he will now make a statement on the subject.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) on 19th June, the Government have agreed with the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board that the crossing should take the form of a bridge, as recommended by the expert panel. As regards a further statement, I regret that I am unable at present to add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) on 23rd October.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask whether he realises that this matter is of urgent importance to the whole East Coast of Scotland, both socially and from a business point of view? Can he give any indication when the work is likely to begin and how long it will take?

Mr. Stuart: I could not say exactly how long it will take but the date before which it will start has already been announced and I have no reason to make any alteration in it.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he is making as highway authority pending further progress with the Forth road bridge to ensure that the present ferry service does not deteriorate.

Mr. J. Stuart: The British Transport Commission has recently improved the Queensferry passage by adding a further vessel to the fleet and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation that it has no intention of curtailing the service before the bridge is in use.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend be for ever vigilant to ensure that this service is kept up to the mark?

Mr. Stuart: As I said, the service actually comes under the British Transport Commission, and it was a question as to whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation or I should reply. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do what my hon. and gallant Friend desires, and as I use the ferry more than he does, we shall both do our best.

Water Supply Scheme, Belhelvie Area

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement regarding the provision of a piped water supply in the Belhelvie area of Aberdeenshire.

Mr. J. Stuart: I recently agreed to Aberdeen County Council's carrying out a water supply scheme for the Belhelvie area as soon as they are ready. This is expected to be in two or three months' time.

Non-graduate Women Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the resentment among women teachers at his decision to continue unequal pay for women non-graduates while implementing equal pay for all other categories of the teaching profession ; and if he will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the reply he has made to the representations of non-graduate women teachers in respect of his refusal to implement fully the principle of equal pay.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Draft Salaries Regulations propose equal pay instalments for all women. Any appearance of inequality arises because non-graduate men teachers of general subjects trained before 1926, when graduation for men became compulsory, are paid as graduates. Graduation for women is not compulsory, and I can find no good reason for paying non-graduate women on the same scale as graduate men and women.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Secretary of State not appreciate that his decision to employ the Regulations in this way is creating very serious discontent among women non-graduates, who felt in the beginning that they would achieve equal pay with men at the maximum? In view of the fact that we do not want unnecessary discontent of that nature in the teaching profession at the moment, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. Stuart: It has been considered very carefully. The whole question depends upon whether they are graduate or non-graduate women. I have no intention or wish to be hard upon them but I believe that the Regulations are fair. I will of course consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there is no reason that I am aware of to alter the Regulations.

Dame Irene Ward: Are non-graduate women paid the same as non-graduate men?

Mr. Stuart: I prefer to have notice of that question.

Miss Herbison: Will the Secretary of State consider taking teachers' salaries completely out of the field of politics? Is he not aware that there is much resentment in this matter? I do beg of him to have this matter reconsidered.

Mr. Stuart: With the hon. Lady's agreement and support, if I can obtain them, I should be glad to take many of these questions out of politics.

Beef Producers (Additional Payments)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional payments will be available to Scottish beef producers as a result of the supplementary amount recently announced for this purpose.

Mr. J. Stuart: Additional payments will be made to Scottish beef producers in accordance with the scale announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 25th October, which of course applies to the United Kingdom. These payments will be over and above those payable under the existing Fatstock Marketing Scheme.

Mr. Spence: Thank you.

Roads (Snow Clearance)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new arrangements have been made for the clearance of snow on main trunk roads in Scotland during the coming winter.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have obtained five additional heavy snow ploughs which will be available—[An HON. MEMBER : "Where are you keeping them?"] I am keeping them in my cupboard, locked up—to reinforce highway authorities' equipment in areas heavily affected by snow.

Mr. Spence: Will my right hon. Friend consider fitting these ploughs with police mobile two-way radio sets so that their work can be used to the best advantage in the winter?

Mr. Stuart: I must confess that I had not considered that point, but I shall be very glad to do so.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a depôt in the north of Scotland, somewhere in the Dingwall area, so that we do not have to go down to Lanark, as we have to do just now, and have these machines arriving far too late, when the damage has already been done?

Mr. Stuart: There is a great deal to be said for dispersing these machines. We give very careful consideration where they can best be placed, but it is rather difficult to know exactly where it is going to snow next.

Flood Damage, Berwickshire and East Lothian

Sir W. Austruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent his Department is meeting the cost of restoring flood damage this autumn ; and what share of this money will be allocated to Berwickshire and East Lothian.

Mr. J. Stuart: As has already been announced, the Government are meeting the full cost of the remedial work necessary on rivers in an area in Moray Nairn and an adjacent part of Inverness-shire where damage was on a disastrous scale. The damage which occurred in Berwickshire and East Lothian, and elsewhere in Scotland, was fortunately on a much smaller scale and does not in the Government's view require special treatment. In these other areas assistance for the restoration of damage to river courses will be available at the normal rates.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although there were not many serious cases of flood damage in Berwick and East Lothian, there were some, and will he give an assurance that this area, besides other parts of Scotland, will receive his most sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Stuart: Certainly, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend will probably recollect, and agree, that in a previous very serious case in Berwickshire special consideration and assistance was given.

Rent Control

Mr. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the subject of rent control in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement as to the Government proposals to change or abolish rent restrictions in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the future of rent control in Scotland.

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for alterations in the Rent Restriction Acts so far as these relate to Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has in regard to rent control in Scotland.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when introducing new legislation amending the Rent Restriction Acts, he will take steps to prevent the eviction of wives and families who have been deserted by husbands who remain nominal tenants and have a security of tenure they no longer require.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Government have had under review the present application of rent control in Scotland and have come to the conclusion that, subject to necessary safeguards, the first steps should be taken towards the abolition of control. Account must, of course, be taken of the special conditions which prevail in Scotland, and the Government's proposals will be placed before Parliament in due course.

Mr. Elliot: In his consideration, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the fact that overcrowding is very much higher in Scotland than it is south of the Border? Will he take that specially into consideration in the review which he carries out?

Mr. Stuart: I assure my right hon. Friend, who has very great knowledge of this matter, that that is, of course, being taken into consideration.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when considering the matter, also take into account the deplorable state of much of the housing accommodation in Scotland? Will he give an assurance that he will not merely tack his provisions on to some Bill which may be put forward in this House by the Minister of Housing and Local Government? Will he give an assurance that we who represent Scotland will be able to deal with the matter in our own way?

Mr. Stuart: I know that this is a matter of very great importance and obvious interest to Scottish Members of Parliament, but the fact is that the subject has been dealt with in the past on a United Kingdom basis. The ten Acts on the Statute Book which deal with rent control or the rents code are all United Kingdom Measures. I am not aware of any special reason for departing from past practice and having a separate Bill for Scotland.

Mr. Fraser: Did we not have a separate Scottish Measure in 1954?

Mr. Stuart: That related to repairs and rents. I am dealing at the moment with rent control.

Mr. McInnes: As the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible for introducing the Measure relating to rents and repairs, a 40 per cent. increase in rents, the abolition of owners' rates, other rating and valuation provisions and the


proposed cut in housing subsidies, all being measures which have imposed hardship on the Scottish people, and is now to be responsible for the ultimate annihilation of rent restriction, will he tell the Scottish people what they are to use in future in place of money?

Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member says "in place of money". He must know very well that the truth is that the average weekly wage has been increased very considerably. Due to general costs rising, the cost of maintaining houses in good repair has risen equally. Our object is to try to ensure that houses are maintained in good condition.

Mr. Rankin: From the statement of the Secretary of State, it now appears that it has been the intention all along to tag on to the English Bill the question of rent control in Scotland. Why was that information not given at the very beginning? What fight did the Secretary of State put up to get a separate Bill for Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: I do not know what the hon. Member means by the information not having been given at the very beginning. I have not had the advantage of a Scottish platform in Wales, but I am now giving the information.

Mr. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the promises which he and his colleagues have given to the Scottish people about Scottish Members of Parliament being allowed to look after Scottish affairs? Will he in this matter follow the example which he himself set when he had legislation dealing with rents before the House in 1954?

Mr. Stuart: The fact is that we have to deal with a number of Scottish Bills in the coming Session, important Bills dealing with subsidies, overspill, and so on ; and this question has always been dealt with on a United Kingdom basis. If it is merely a matter of a couple of application Clauses, as it has been in the past, I think it would be a waste of the time of the Scottish Standing Committee and Parliament to have a separate Bill for Scotland.

Housing Subsidies (Circular)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent replies he has received from local

authorities in Ayrshire and elsewhere in Scotland about his recent circular on Government housing policy.

Mr. J. Stuart: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the circular on housing subsidies issued on 2nd August with a copy of the statement which I made to the House on 31st July. This circular did not call for a reply. I have, however, received representations against the proposed revision of housing subsidies from twelve local authorities in Ayrshire and from a number of other local authorities elsewhere in Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reference to twelve local authorities in Ayrshire means that the overwhelming majority of the burghs there, including the Conservative ones, are objecting? Is it his intention to swallow up the increased wages to which he has just referred by increasing rents?

Mr. Stuart: No, Sir. I do not quite understand what the hon. Member is driving at. I am being perfectly frank with him. Twelve local authorities in Ayrshire have objected. There have also been objections from one city, four county councils, eleven large burghs and fifty-four small burghs. However, I have always maintained that it is very difficult to get 100 per cent. agreement.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State recall that he said in the circular that in future subsidies would be available only for houses for approved needs? Is he to decide what are the approved needs of every local authority in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member is probably aware that very lengthy discussions have taken place on this subject. I have never suggested that local authorities were in agreement with everything that has been suggested by the Government and the Scottish Office and myself. Nevertheless, we must proceed with this. Details will, of course, come before the House.

Mr. Ross: Last night we listened to one of the Joint Under-Secretaries expressing great praise for Scottish local authorities and saying what a common-sense attitude they had to all their problems. In view of that, what weight is given to their protest about this matter?


Does it in any way change the Secretary of State's mind about going ahead with the proposal?

Mr. Stuart: I have said that the proposals will be laid before the House. They will be debated, and it will then be up to the hon. Member to change my mind.

Hospital, Heathfield (Extension)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the lack of accommodation for patients from south Ayrshire at the County Hospital at Ayr; that a site for the extension of the hospital at Heathfield is available ; that there has been delay by the Regional Board in coming to a decision in the matter ; and what steps he is taking to expedite the building of the proposed new extension.

Mr. J. Stuart: The hon. Member will be glad to learn that the Regional Hospital Board plan to start the construction of a new out-patient department at Heathfield Hospital during the year 1957–58—has been approved, I must mean. [Laughter.] I expect that the negotiations about the amount of ground to be acquired, which have not delayed the project, will be concluded very shortly.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Secretary of State say when he approved these plans?

Mr. Stuart: When I approved them?

Mr. Hughes: Yes—when?

Mr. Stuart: Well, I must have done so. The short answer, Sir, is recently.

EGYPT AND ISRAEL

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister—or, in his absence, the Lord Privy Seal—a Question of which I have given him Private Notice, namely, whether he has any information about the movement of Israeli troops, and whether he can make a statement about the general position in the Middle East.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is still in consultation with the French Ministers, and will make a statement to the House at 4.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: May I seek your guidance, Sir? This may be partly a hypothetical question, nevertheless I venture to put it to you. In the event of the Prime Minister's statement being regarded as unsatisfactory or incomplete, would you then be prepared to accept a Motion, in accordance with Standing Order No. 9, for the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that would be possible then. The Motion should be made immediately after Questions. It is a difficulty, I think, but I will consider what can be done. Of course, if the House wants to come to some arrangement to debate the matter, I can fall in with that.

Mr. Shinwell: You will appreciate the position, Sir. The absence of the Prime Minister creates a difficulty for myself, and possibly for other hon. Members, also. I had expected that the Prime Minister would be able to reply to the Private Notice Question of which I gave notice early this morning, but I recognise his difficulty. He is evidently obtaining further information, and the House must appreciate that, but surely we should be permitted—

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the difficulty, too. I suffer from the same difficulty. There is certainly nothing before me now on which I could agree to the Adjournment. I know no more than—probably not as much as—the right hon. Gentleman. There could not, therefore, be such an Adjournment now. The Prime Minister, if he intervenes later, can only do so on a Motion, which we should have to


consider. I could not give an answer to that question at the moment, beyond what I have said.

Mr. Shinwell: I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, but you recognise that I am in a difficulty, also. Could I ascertain from you whether you would be prepared to consider such a Motion after the Prime Minister's statement?

Mr. Elliot: Further to that point of order. Do I understand you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister would be intervening on a Motion, and that the rights of the House would thereby be preserved? I agree with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that it is important that the rights of the House should be preserved, but, if the Prime Minister were intervening on a Motion, I gather from your Ruling that the rights of the House would be so preserved, and that the matter would be open to debate.

Mr. Speaker: Thinking the matter over, it looks as if the Prime Minister will make the statement, if he is to make it later, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I should think. That Motion would be before the House, and would be for the House to deal with. I do not think that I can go further than that at the moment.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(SAFETY OF PUPILS GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL.)

3.35 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end to insert :
(2) Where in cases it may be equally a contribution to the safety of children in circumstances as described in the foregoing subsection, the Secretary of State may make representations to licensing authorities under the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to embody in licenses of public bus services such conditions as to routes as may obviate the necessity of children having to cross main roads or encounter similar hazards.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) spoke yesterday to this Amendment. It seemed to me that he made a very good case indeed and that the Lord Advocate appeared to think that there was much in the ideas put forward by my right hon. Friend. We should like to know whether there has been any discussion among the Scottish Ministers and, if so, whether they are now ready to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that the question raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is one of great interest, but while we have great sympathy with the Amendment, or with the idea underlying it, we do not think that this is the appropriate way to obtain the results which, I think, the hon. Lady wishes to obtain.
As I see it, the idea behind the Amendment is to bring forcibly before the traffic commissioners the importance of taking into consideration the safety of children on the roads. Representations can always be made to the traffic commissioners when an application is made before them, and one of those who can represent is the local authority. The local authority is the most appropriate body to make the representation, because it


knows the local situation better even than does the Secretary of State himself. Accordingly, we do not think it desirable that the Secretary of State should make the representations, but that they should be made, as at present laid down, by the local authorities.
There is another subsidiary and rather important objection to representations being made by the Secretary of State. As the House knows, there is a form of appeal against the decision of the traffic commissioners, and I think it would be bad practice, and against constitutional principle, that the Secretary of State should, as it were, be a party in an appeal which would be heard by his colleague, the Minister of Transport.
While sympathising therefore, with the idea behind the Amendment, we think that it would be better to leave things in their present position, knowing that the education authority can make representations in any appropriate circumstances.

Miss Herbison: I shall certainly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment ; but, in doing so, I would ask again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues will give a great deal of attention to this point. I ask because of my own personal experience in a case in which, by using his good offices, the traffic commissioner did get one bus in the day to go another way to pick up children. The local authority had already made representations about this and had failed. It seems to me that we cannot just leave it to the local authority. Local authorities feel very strongly in these matters, but sometimes they are not successful in their efforts.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment but, in doing so, I ask that further consideration be given to this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Lord Advocate.]

3.40 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I am, indeed, very surprised that the Lord Advocate should have moved the Third Reading so briefly. Yesterday, we spent a very long time discussing the Bill. It is quite evident that we, on this side, attach far greater

importance not only to this Bill but to all matters that appertain to Scottish education than some others would appear to do. Yesterday, while we were moving Amendment after Amendment and new Clause after new Clause, no interest whatever was shown by Government back benchers in any case that was put forward. Sometimes there was not a single Member on the Government back benches—

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: That is not true.

Miss Herbison: One hon. Member opposite is protesting. I think that he and perhaps one other hon. Member were the only two on the benches opposite who made a short intervention. In all matters of real importance not a single voice was heard from Government back benchers.
This was an opportunity to discuss not only what the Government considered necessary to amend the 1946 Act, but what we and others considered should be done. I had hoped that there would have been some ideas in the minds of Government back benchers. It is a shocking example of the lack of interest among Government supporters that they found nothing at all to amend in this Bill and that only two of them, during that long debate, found it worth while to say anything about education in Scotland.
I know that today we have had to curtail the time at our disposal to debate the Third Reading of the Bill. From the Second Reading hon. Members on this side of the House have had to curtail what they wanted to say. No Minister could say that a minute was wasted yesterday. Hon. Members on this side of the House have given much thought to the provisions in this Bill and have considered how to improve it. Time and again we had to cut down speeches, and there were hon. Members who were not able to speak at all yesterday because of the time limit that was placed on us by the Government having introduced this Bill so late in the Session.
This is not the kind of Bill that we should have liked to see. I agree that many of its provisions are improvements on the 1946 Act, but there are some which we consider are not improvements. We feel strongly that if we had been given more time to develop our case we


might have got the Minister to accept what we consider to be improvements in the 1946 Act.
The Joint Under-Secretary said time and again that the Government had such faith in the local authorities that they were willing to leave matters referred to in the Bill with the local authorities. Yet at Question Time today the Secretary of State made it quite clear, on the important question of housing, that he had no intention of leaving it in the hands of the local authorities. If the Joint Under-Secretary is to take part in this short debate I think he might deal with that matter. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends wish to speak on it.
We shall give a Third Reading to the Bill because it contains some improvements, but we protest that a Bill of such importance, which could improve educational facilities in Scotland, has been hurried through the House in this disgraceful manner.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: This was an eminently suitable Bill for the Scottish Grand Committee. That point has been made before, but it loses nothing by repetition and emphasis. Despite that, the Government waited until the dying moments of this Session to introduce it and, what is worse, left no interval between the Committee and Report stages, so that any representations which had been made to the House could have been considered between those two stages.
This seems to be an indication almost of contempt with which the Government have treated the Opposition in this respect. If the Government had been sincere in saying that this Bill was important, and held all the promise which they said it held during the Second Reading, they would have left some interval betwen those two stages.
Today, the matter has become even more ludicrous because, with the assent of the Opposition, we were allocated until 6 o'clock today for the discussion of the Third Reading. Now, because of a new turn of events, the time has been further shortened. What is now the position? The Lord Advocate, by formally moving the Third Reading, leaves it to the responsibility of the Opposition to

carry on the Government's business. What will happen if this debate collapses before 4.30 today? Did that point cross the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind? I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will let us know what the Government propose to do if this debate should finish before 4.30.
Turning to the Bill itself, it is true that, so far as it goes, there are some improvements which we welcome. The first improvement is in Clause 1, which makes it possible for local authorities to assist and to be assisted in the provision of safety barriers, and so on, in dangerous roads. Clause 4, which deals with bursaries, is also a welcome provision, because it extends the payment of bursaries in respect of dependants of students.
We regret, however, that the Government have not gone a little further in this matter and did not accept a human Amendment which we moved yesterday in respect of disabled children who are kept at school compulsorily until 16 years of age. The parents of the normal child who proceeds to a senior secondary school can receive a grant, whereas the parents of the handicapped child who is compulsorily kept at school until 16 receive nothing. The Government would have been acting with great public spirit if they had found it possible to accept that Amendment. However they did not do so.
We sought the opportunity given us in Committee yesterday to make some important suggestions which would have had a radical influence on the future of education in Scotland. The Government missed that chance, and we can only hope that, in the days to come, some of the suggestions and arguments which were advanced most sincerely yesterday will yet prevail and the Government will, at some future time, if we have the opportunity of raising them again, find it possible to accept them for the future betterment of education in Scotland.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to make two comments at this stage, one as to the manner in which the Government have treated the House in regard to this Bill, and the other as to the contents of the Bill itself.
As to the manner, I submit that the Government have treated the House with


contempt. On Second Reading, the explanation of the Bill was inadequate. Many questions were put to the Minister who was conducting the Second Reading. He was unable to answer those questions. We came then to the Committee stage yesterday, which was rushed. Mr. Speaker, if you had occupied the Chair during the whole of yesterday, I am quite sure that you would agree with me when I say that the speeches from this side of the House were all of a very high order and constructive. [HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."] I say nothing of my own contribution, Mr. Speaker. I am quite sure the House will agree with me when I say that more than one day should have been devoted to the Committee stage of the Bill.
Today, we come to the Third Reading, and the Lord Advocate, who is usually, as I said yesterday, so careful, diligent and exhaustive in his arguments in this House—

Mr. Ede: Exhausting.

Mr. Hughes: —has the audacity to get up and move the Third Reading formally. Is the Bill important, or is it not? If it is unimportant, then we can deal with it on that basis. On the other hand, if it is an important Bill, the Lord Advocate is treating the House with contempt in formally moving the Third Reading.
As to the contents, the Bill is a very "mixed grill" ; it deals with a variety of subjects in a quite inadequate way. The Opposition yesterday did its best to make it a useful Bill. We proposed Amendment after Amendment, but they were turned down in a most cavalier fashion by the Government. Now this puny weakling comes before the House on Third Reading, and is rushed through in this way.
I submit that the Bill is a quite unworthy contribution to the great and varied problems of Scottish education. The variety of topics touched on its 14 Clauses and 2 Schedules is an indication of the inadequacy of treatment afforded to them. The Bill, to adopt a well-known saying, is "Jack of all trades and master of none". In its 14 Clauses it deals with a variety of subjects, but deals with none of them in an effective or exhaustive way. We of Her Majesty's Opposition made many attempts yesterday to improve the Bill by proposing

Amendments, but these attempts were, in the main, quite unreasonably rejected. The result is that this wretched little Bill, which should have been made a landmark of the right kind, is being made a landmark of a bad kind, a landmark of Tory ineptitude in dragging the Bill in at the end of a Session, rushing it through, giving inadequate opportunity for amending or improving it, and then formally moving the Third Reading.
Scotland waited for a long time to have its educational problems dealt with adequately. It waited until the year 1946, when one of the first acts of the new Labour Government was to introduce the Education (Scotland) Bill of that year, a comprehensive consolidating Measure which became, and remains, the legal basis of the public educational system of Scotland.
I do not propose to analyse this little Bill in detail. I am just taking this opportunity, on Third Reading, to make these few comments and to say that the Bill is quite unworthy of the occasion and quite unworthy of the Government, and should have been far more robust.

Mr. Ede: Not unworthy of this Government.

Mr. Hughes: No more worthy than one might expect from a Tory Government. What is required is a Bill which would enshrine the broad principles which are required in any Measure to solve the problems of Scottish education. This Bill does not do it. It is hopeless now to do anything more ; the procedure is on its last legs, and the Bill is receiving its Third Reading. It will now go to another place—

Mr. John Rankin: It will not.

Mr. Hughes: It has gone to another place, I am told ; it has had its chance there of being improved.

Miss Herbison: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The Bill still has to go to another place because, although it stayed on the Order Paper for almost a whole Session, this inefficient Government had so many Amendments of their own that it must go back to another place.

Mr. Hughes: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench


for showing that I was right. The Bill will go to another place. The point is that it has had its chance in the other place of being improved and made a better Bill, and it has had its chance in this House of being made a better Bill ; but the Government, represented in the other place and here, have not taken the opportunity of making it such a constructive Measure and a landmark in the history of Scottish education as the occasion demands.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The alleged purpose of this Bill, according to the Memorandum, was to
remove some of the difficulties which have been experienced in the administration and development of public education in Scotland.
It was therefore not without some high hopes that we anticipated and entered upon the Second Reading and Committee stages. But that all began nearly a year ago. It was in 1946 that we had the last opportunity of considering Scottish education. Indeed, the 1946 Measure was merely a consolidating Measure, and it was really much earlier than that that we had an opportunity of going through the whole scope of legislation relating to the structure, administration and development of Scottish education. It certainly was not before time that this House gave its attention to the problem.
Many difficulties had been experienced in the working of the original Bill. Many ideas have changed with reference to education which demand legislation in order to put the new ideas into force. What we had, therefore, was potentially a great opportunity. It is all the more regrettable that the way the Bill has been handled by the Government has robbed this House of any possibility of doing what the situation really demanded.
We had the Committee stage yesterday, in the full knowledge that we were today to get Report and Third Reading within a few hours. How could we discuss seriously important aspects of Scottish education and hope that the Government would take them into consideration and eventually decide to do something about the complaints made from this side of the House? Obviously, it was impossible. The fact that we have lost an opportunity not merely of deciding upon these important matters but even of debating aspects

of education in present circumstances which are a challenge is the fault of the Government. Is it not all of a piece that, on the winding up of such a Bill, a responsible Minister of the Crown stands and says, as his contribution, "I beg to move that the Bill be now read the Third time", and nothing else? I do not wonder—he is a lawyer. One of the curses of Scotland has been its delight in litigation and its need for lawyers, but we need them not in the matter of Scottish education.
It is a matter of complaint by Members on this side that last night, in the circumstances in which we were placed, when there was obviously no time for considering even the most minor changes, we were faced by a Minister saying that he could not make changes because he was not empowered by the Secretary of State to make them. The Secretary of State, out of courtesy, should have been in his place last night—and, indeed, today. That is our first complaint about the Bill.
Potentially, it was a very important Bill for every Member from a Scottish constituency. In Scotland, we have lived far too long on our educational reputation and, unfortunately, debates on Scottish Education in this House and in the Scottish Grand Committee have been occasions for dabbing a rather dilapidated structure with whitewash. And yet today, when the challenge is so great, when report after report stresses the need for technicians, who can only come through the schools, and point out that we are not producing them—professional men, skilled craftsmen and all the rest—we get a slick Government who are pleased with themselves when they are able to get a potentially important Bill through the House without adequate discussion. The Joint Under-Secretary stood at the Box the other night and proclaimed his ignorance of the provisions of the Bill. He did not think it sufficiently important even to read his own brief and he could not answer simple questions.
Let us look at this world-shattering Bill. It is designed to remove some of the difficulties which have been experienced in the administration and development of Scottish education. Its first purpose is the putting up of safety barriers outside schools and another is the filling in of potholes in private roads. My hon. and


learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who is the expert on potholes, has just left the Chamber and it would be unfair of me to go into his brilliant speech of last night, in which he left no pothole unexplored.
There is, however, one thing that the Government have not told us, even on this part of the Bill. They have not told us what it will cost. What do the Government estimate will be the cost? Another part of the Bill, which we applaud, will help certain people who are undertaking study at a later age—married people, perhaps, or people with dependent parents. We are glad that this is being done but we would like to know what it will cost.
I ask those two questions to find out how the cost will be paid for. It is bound to cost the Government something—or will it? Perhaps the Education Fund is to remain the same and the only change will be a different spread of the money within that fund. In other words, to pay for these great improvements that the Government have brought in on almost the last day of the Session, we must be deprived of something else that would be paid for from the Scottish Education Fund. That is one of the more important questions to which I should like an answer today.
It is regrettable that the Bill began in another place. While there may have been more pedestrian and well-reasoned criticism of various aspects, the other place is not permitted to legislate for the spending of money. It may well be that in the interests of Scottish education we should toe doing things that cost money In every possible direction, therefore, the Bill has been handled in such a way that we could not possibly get the best out of the opportunities that were presented by this chance to go through the 1946 Act.
It is regrettable that in a Bill which claimed to be aiding the greater development and improvement of Scottish education there should be Clause 2, which takes away from local authorities in Scotland what is presently one of their duties and what I consider to be an important duty. It takes away also from the Secretary of State one of his important supervisory duties. Clause 2 amends Section 7 of the original Act, which set out the responsibilities laid upon local authorities

by its earlier Sections in carrying out the will of Parliament in respect of primary, secondary and adult education. But whereas hitherto responsibility has rested on the local authorities for drawing up and presenting schemes in respect of certain aspects of primary, secondary and adult education, and on the Secretary of State for examining and approving them, these schemes are no longer to be presented. It is regrettable that at a time when we have been welcoming a seeming revival of interest in adult education in Scotland, the Government should be doing anything which in any way should be interpreted as discouraging it.
The whole thing is all of a piece with the Government's whole attitude to education. It is one of pure neglect, doing as little as possible and avoiding the scrutiny of the House of Commons. I sincerely hope that in future the Government will be able to give us a better opportunity of discussing these Scottish questions, for they have done very badly in the present Bill.
I should like to know how we, as Members of the House, are to be informed of what is happening in the education of those over school age. How is the Department to keep track of what is being done? How will it advise authorities as a time when they may well be doing something which is undesirable? If schemes are not presented at the right time, the Department will not be fully informed of what is happening in the local areas.
This could have been a good Bill. It could have been a great Bill and, as one of my hon. Friends said, it could have been a landmark in our discussion of Scottish education, but by the way that the Government have handled it they have shown that they certainly are desirous of avoiding any such searchlight into what is happening in education today, and I regret it.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: My only complaint about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is that he has been too generous towards the Government. My hon. Friend seemed to think that this was really the first occasion on which we have had discussion on educational legislation since 1945, but my hon. Friend


must have forgotten that the period is infinitely longer than that. The story is a much graver one for Scottish education.
In 1945, Parliament was in the middle of discussing a major education Measure for Scotland to follow the 1944 English Act. When the General Election came at that time, the Bill was rushed through without adequate consideration. My hon. Friends who were in the House at that time withdrew many Amendments to expedite the Bill's progress and it was not fully discussed or given adequate Parliamentary scrutiny. It was followed in 1946 by a purely consolidation Act, and therefore I suppose there has been no serious consideration of the educational legislation of Scotland for something like 30 or 40 years. That is the position at the moment.
On this occasion, the Government have had ample opportunity to put the matter right by enabling the House to give adequate consideration to the Bill. I notice from the Bill that it passed from another place as long ago as February this year. There was every opportunity for Scottish Members of the House to have given a fresh scrutiny to the whole of Scottish education, instead of which we have come back from the long Recess, been presented with the Bill and told that we must rush it through without being able to deal with any of the many important aspects of Scottish education which are now long overdue for overhaul. It is merely a further symptom of the general malaise of Scottish education today.
We are becoming increasingly aware that our country has been living for more than half a century on an educational reputation which belongs almost entirely to the past and every year has less and less relevance to contemporary conditions, for there are so many branches of modern education in which Scotland lags behind. Yet the Government go complacently along without doing anything very much about Scottish education. That is the attitude of Members of the party opposite generally towards Scottish education. The Government are merely further expressing that general attitude towards it. I have lately been reading the reports of the debates on Scottish education when Members on the opposite side of

the House were sitting on this side of the House, and the constant refrain of their remarks was that education should never be a subject of any sort of controversy and that there should never be any sort of political argument about it, and that legislation concerning education should be passed through the House as quietly and as quickly as possible.
That has constantly been the opinion of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, and it explains their treatment of this Bill. A little earlier in the House today we were having an argument about other Scottish legislation, and whether it should be treated separately from English legislation. Because of the way this Bill has been treated by the Government there may be a great deal to be said for tagging Scottish education legislation on to the end of English education legislation. It could be argued, for instance, that Scottish education legislation should have been tagged on to the English Measure of 1944. In those circumstances, we should at least have had time for the adequate consideration of legislation about Scottish education. As it is, we have our separate Scottish Bills, like the present one, and because of the lack of interest and of energy on the part of the Government we do not have opportunity to give the Bill proper consideration.
This Bill is a modest Measure with some merit. For instance, one Clause, which has been strengthened by an Opposition Amendment, gives the local authorities not merely the power but, indeed, the duty to make grants to the dependants of adult students. That is a very important Clause. It is a notable step forward in present conditions, in which we want to encourage more and more married men and family men in the workshops and factories to go back to the classroom and the lecture room to acquire technological skills so important to the country today. We want more and more of what has been called "dungaree degrees". That Clause is a most useful part of the Bill.
However, there are so many other provisions which ought to be in the Bill, but which are not. The Government had many opportunities in Committee to make the Bill more than a minor reforming Measure, to make it a really important Measure for Scottish education, but they


failed to grasp their opportunities. I have come to the conclusion that we shall not have any really adequate consideration of Scottish educational problems by the present Government, and that we shall not have that kind of shake up that Scottish education requires to bring it into line with the needs of the time from the present Government, and that for the education legislation which Scotland so badly needs we must await a change in the Administration.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: I have been present practically throughout our consideration of this Bill and have observed with great attention the efforts of the Opposition to magnify its importance. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomas) summed up the Bill in proper terms, for he said that it is a modest Measure of some merit, but throughout our consideration of the Bill hon. and right hon. Members opposite have tried to blow it up into something of great importance being neglected by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House. Of course, it is not. It is a simple, kindly little Bill, a tidying-up Bill, a Bill for the end of the Session.
The Opposition have tried to tag on to it some very important matters. Some day, perhaps, we shall have the opportunity to debate comprehensive schools and the cessation of fee paying in Scotland. Those are very important matters, we agree, but not for this Bill, and that is why we did not prolong the debate yesterday. When the right time comes we shall be ready to discuss those subjects.

Miss Herbison: When?

Mr. George: It is a modest Bill, but it is an important Bill in some ways. In particular, there is the Clause which the hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned, the Clause which comes near to my own heart, the Clause which enables the local authorities to pay bursaries to the dependants of those wishing to attend technical colleges. I have spent many years in technical colleges and in mining areas where young men of promise left school at 14 years of age, who, had they had the opportunity to stay on at school or to take further education, might have played a far more important part in life than they did.
I am delighted that this provision has been made. It is very important. I hope it will be an expensive Measure. I hope its existence will be known throughout the country so that those who could have acquired further education in technical classes had they not been prevented from doing so by lack of funds may benefit by it. Thus I hope that this provision will be expensive.
I have been reading a new book issued by P.E.P. giving an analysis of what happens to graduates on leaving their universities. The year taken for the analysis was one in which many of the students were men of mature years who had been in the Army. There had been a long gap of time between their leaving school and going to the university. Thus it is quite evident that there is no real difficulty in taking men from the workshop to the technical school and university and thus making them into the technicians and technologists we need. This provision is very dear to my heart, and I hope it will be used.
I have listened to our debates upon the Bill with great interest, and I have learned a lot, and I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the able way in which he has handled the Bill throughout its course. I congratulate him and those who have assisted him upon the patience which they have shown with many of the irrelevancies brought up from time to time. It is a modest but an important Measure, and I congratulate the Government on bringing it now to its Third Reading.

4.18 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) very much for his kind remarks.
In winding up this short debate, I should like at once to thank hon. and right hon. Members of the Opposition for their co-operation with us in getting this Measure on to the Statute Book in somewhat difficult conditions. Owing to the exigencies of the Parliamentary timetable—and only today we have an example of how unexpected changes have to be made in it—we have had to work at considerable speed. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) complained that the Lord Advocate confined himself to


the formal statement in moving the Third Reading. My right hon. and learned Friend had ready a very good speech which he very much wanted to make, but it was thought that the Opposition should be given the fullest opportunity in the limited time at our disposal, and for that reason, and that reason alone, my right hon. and learned Friend gallantly withheld his oratory. That was the only reason why the Third Reading was only moved formally.
Despite the comparative speed with which we have had to work, the Bill has had a good examination and emerges from our discussions a better Measure than it was and for that I want to express my appreciation to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.
As I said at the opening of the Second Reading debate, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok has just reiterated, this is a minor Measure designed not to introduce any substantial, single reform, but rather to deal with a number of miscellaneous administrative difficulties which have hampered our progress in recent years. Though one or two of the Clauses have evoked queries and sometimes even mild suspicions—if one can use the word "mild" for any intervention by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—I still feel that by the end of our long Committee stage yesterday the aims of the Bill were well understood and for the most part had won the approval of the House.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said that she regarded some of the Clauses as quite valuable. It was only in respect of one or two others that she was not quite so sure. But minor though they be, I feel that the proposed changes in the Bill will be of real practical value to Scottish education. Inevitably—and they have been mentioned more than once this afternoon—wider issues have been raised. Though we have not been able to accept many of the new proposals made by the Opposition, I should like to assure hon. and right hon. Members opposite that the closest consideration will be given to the speeches made because, of course, this great service of education is not and must never be regarded as a static service. It changes and develops, as indeed it must do, from year to year, and the stimulus

of Parliamentary debate, such as we had yesterday in particular, is one of the most potent agencies in our continuous advance.
I thought that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) was a little unkind to those who give their time to this education service in Scotland when he spoke about its suffering from a general malaise and suggested that we are behind the times and not keeping up with other countries. The hon. Member does great injustice to Scottish administrators and denigrates a great Scottish service. It is my duty to watch comparative movements in other countries, and I still believe that the Scottish education service is second to none. I hope that the hon. Member will help me to keep it so in days to come.
I do not know how many debates on education have taken place in the House, but in the last 250 years, and that is a long stretch of time, there have been many education Acts affecting our country. Some of them have been of the first importance in the forward march of our people, for example the Acts of 1696, of 1872 and of 1918, which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) so properly described as a tremendous achievement of legislative power. Today we are making a modest addition to that venerable list. In so far as it brings benefits to children and to other students, and streamlines the activities of the various authorities responsible for Scottish education, I am sure that all of us wish the Bill well.

Miss Herbison: It might help the hon. Gentleman, who has been asked to carry on and is finding it difficult, to let us have the brief of that very good speech which the Lord Advocate had and we did not get.

Mr. Stewart: It would be much better, I think, if the Lord Advocate kept that for another day.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked a question about the possible cost of this Measure, and I should like to have been able to give him an exact figure, but it is not possible to estimate the cost because it depends on what action the local authorities take. As the hon. Member knows, we have given the local authorities power in the Bill to do


a great many new things, such as the improvement of roads, paths and bridges. To the extent that they operate that new power they will spend money which will be borne by the rates, which will be assisted by Government subventions. I am sorry, therefore, that I am not able to advise the hon. Member on what the cost will be.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North put a point about the local authorities, which seems a very great subject with which to fill the next couple of minutes. The hon. Lady appeared to find some discrepancy between my expression yesterday of faith in the local authorities and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon. Actually, there is no discrepancy at all. In the realms of both housing and education we leave the actual work to the local authorities. We leave to them very wide discretion in the way that they perform their operations and the extent to which they carry through the Measures passed by the House.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. While we welcome the new-found interest in Scottish education, it would be helpful if newcomers would allow us to hear what the Joint Under-Secretary is saying.

Mr. Speaker: There is very frequently a certain amount of disturbance when a large number of Members enter or leave the House. I would take this oppor-

tunity, since it is given to me, of asking hon. Members when they leave the House or when they enter it to do so quietly.

Mr. Stewart: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I was dealing with a matter which I am sure must be of interest to the whole House, and not only those concerned with Scottish education.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North had challenged me a little while ago about the genuineness of the Government's faith in local authority administration. Yesterday, in Committee, I had to reject more than one Amendment from the Opposition which sought to take away from the authorities the discretion which they now enjoy. I supported that view on the ground that it was right for the House and for a Government to impose faith in the authorities and let them do their job as they thought right. In a democracy of our kind, we must trust the authorities to perform their duties as they think best.
It has been a very good, short, sharp debate on this Measure. I thank the hon. Members who have now filled the House for the great interest they have shown in what we are doing in Scotland. I hope that I may take this as an example of the faith they have in the Scottish Ministers in the work which they are now attempting to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

EGYPT AND ISRAEL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I was given notice that this Motion might be necessary, but I hope that any statements made on the Adjournment will, by the strict order of the House, be confined to the reason for adjourning the House. I hope, also, that in future some means will be found of making these very necessary statements within the rules of the House. I do not wish to deprive the House of hearing the Prime Minister.

Mr. Shinwell: But, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a most unexpected decision. It was not my impression originally that the Prime Minister intended to do more than interrupt the proceedings, as has been done scores of times in the House by Ministers and Prime Ministers, who make a statement and then perhaps are interrogated on the statement, and leave it at that That was my impression.
It was for that reason I ventured to ask you, Sir, on a point of order, whether you would consider, after the Prime Minister's statement, after interrupting the proceedings, accepting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order 9. You were not quite clear whether that could be done, and it was suggested then that the Prime Minister would make his statement on the Motion for the Adjournment. But if we are now about to debate the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, surely we should be permitted to debate the statement that the Prime Minister makes. Otherwise, what is the purpose of it?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The last Order, the Third Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords] has been finished. The Question now before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn." That will permit a discussion on the Question, which will enable the Prime Minister's statement to be amplified and discussed by hon. Members if they feel so inclined.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement.
As the House will know, for some time past the tension on the frontiers of Israel has been increasing. The growing military strength of Egypt has given rise to renewed apprehension, which the statements and actions of the Egyptian Government have further aggravated. The establishment of a Joint Military Command between Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the renewed raids by guerillas, culminating in the incursion of Egyptian commandos on Sunday night, had all produced a very dangerous situation.
Five days ago news was received that the Israel Government were taking certain measures of mobilisation. Her Majesty's Government at once instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Tel Aviv to make inquiries of the Israel Minister for Foreign Affairs and to urge restraint.
Meanwhile, President Eisenhower called for an immediate tripartite discussion between representatives of the United Kingdom, France and the United States. A meeting was held on 28th October, in Washington, and a second meeting took place on 29th October.
While these discussions were proceeding, news was received last night that Israel forces had crossed the frontier and had penetrated deep into Egyptian territory. Later, further reports were received indicating that paratroops had been dropped. It appears that the Israel spearhead was not far from the banks of the Suez Canal. From recent reports it also appeared that air forces are in action in the neighbourhood of the Canal.
During the last few weeks Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty, having regard to their obligations under the Anglo-Jordan "Treaty, to give assurances, both public and private, of their intention to honour these obligations. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Tel Aviv late last night received an assurance that Israel would not attack Jordan.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation with the United States Ambassador early this morning. The French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have come over to London at short notice at the invitation


of Her Majesty's Government to deliberate with us on these events.
I must tell the House that very grave issues are at stake, and that unless hostilities can quickly be stopped free passage through the Canal will be jeopardised. Moreover, any fighting on the banks of the Canal would endanger the ships actually on passage. The number of crews and passengers involved totals many hundreds, and the value of the ships which are likely to be on passage is about £50 million, excluding the value of the cargoes.
Her Majesty's Government and the French Government have accordingly agreed that everything possible should be done to bring hostilities to an end as soon as possible. Their representatives in New York have, therefore, been instructed to join the United States representative in seeking an immediate meeting of the Security Council. This began at 4 p.m.
In the meantime, as a result of the consultations held in London today, the United Kingdom and French Governments have now addressed urgent communications to the Governments of Egypt and Israel. In these we have called upon both sides to stop all warlike action by land, sea and air forthwith and to withdraw their military forces to a distance of 10 miles from the Canal. Further, in order to separate the belligerents and to guarantee freedom of transit through the Canal by the ships of all nations, we have asked the Egyptian Government to agree that Anglo-French forces should move temporarily—I repeat, temporarily—into key positions at Port Said, Ismailia and Suez.
The Governments of Egypt and Israel have been asked to answer this communication within 12 hours. It has been made clear to them that, if at the expiration of that time one or both have not undertaken to comply with these requirements, British and French forces will intervene in whatever strength may be necessary to secure compliance.
I will continue to keep the House informed of the situation.

Mr. Gaitskell: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a statement of the utmost gravity. I think it would be unwise if we were to plunge into any lengthy discussion or, indeed, to comment upon

this until we have had an opportunity of thinking over what the right hon. Gentleman has said and making up our minds upon it. Therefore, if I may, I will make only a few comments which seem to me worth making in this extremely serious situation.
We are obliged, of course, under the Tripartite Declaration, to do everything we can to stop aggression, either by Israel against the Arab States or by the Arab States against Israel. The Prime Minister made no reference to the Tripartite Declaration and I should like him to tell us, if he would, what the attitude of the Government is to that Declaration now.
Secondly, of course, we are bound by the Charter of the United Nations to do everything we can to stop conflict, and I certainly warmly endorse those parts of the Prime Minister's statement in which he said it was extremely important that hostilities should cease as soon as possible. I am also delighted that the matter has been referred to the United Nations and that the Security Council is now meeting to discuss it. I would hope that we would at any rate now pledge our support in advance to any decisions which the Security Council may reach on this matter.
The last part of the Prime Minister's statement is, of course, the gravest part, and on that I would not like, without further consideration, to make any detailed comment, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. We want to stop the hostilities ; we want, I should have thought, both parties to withdraw themselves from the fighting area, but I must ask the Prime Minister under what authority, and with what right, he believes that British and French forces are justified in armed intervention in this matter before there has been any pronouncement by the United Nations upon it.

The Prime Minister: I will endeavour to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions—first, as regards the Tripartite Declaration. Certainly, the spirit of the Tripartite Declaration, and more than the spirit, operates in our minds.

Mr. S. Silverman: The letter is equally important.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not interrupt me for a moment. This is a very serious matter.
It is also true that Egypt's own attitude to the Tripartite Declaration has been, to say the very least of it, equivocal. She has made it quite clear on more than one occasion, certainly in Government-controlled newspapers if not by other means, that she does not wish the Tripartite Declaration to be invoked on her behalf. I thought I ought fairly to add that in giving a picture to the House.
Secondly, as for the Security Council. I am sorry that the communication which I have now made to the House was rushed. I finished discussions with the French Ministers only a very few moments ago and I came to the House at once and gave the information. I thought it was right that I should.
We have communicated it and I hope it will have reached the Security Council by now, and they will have it before them in the course of the discussions which they will now hold.
Finally, on the last part, which I fully understand is the gravest, we do maintain, and I think I must fairly say, that there is nothing in the Tripartite Declaration or in the Charter which abrogates the right of a Government to take such steps as are essential to protect the lives of their citizens and vital rights such as are here at stake. I ought to add, "vital international rights such as are here at stake".

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would make it plain that it is the intention of the Government, in making this proposal to the Egyptian and Israeli Governments, simply to safeguard the lives of British nationals and that as soon as they are satisfied that those lives are safe the forces will be withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: I used the word "temporarily" deliberately in my statement. There are some who think that we could have invoked other treaties to do what we are doing. I did not want to do that. We have based this action simply on the present situation. We certainly should not wish to keep any British forces there, and I am sure the French would not wish to do so for one moment longer than is absolutely necessary to deal with this immediate situation and the very real danger of fighting across the Canal. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question.

Mr. Clement Davies: Do I understand the Prime Minister's views to be these: that the first desirability is the cessation of hostilities; secondly, that if there is any danger to life or to shipping these should be protected ; and, thirdly, that any question of who is the aggressor will be decided by the Security Council and that pressure will be brought upon the Security Council to deal with these matters as early as possible? Is that right?

The Prime Minister: The Security Council are considering the matter now, and it would not be for me to express an opinion as to what they will say, but we thought it right to express our view on the situation and the action we should have to take if this situation continued to develop with its present seriousness.

Mr. Shinwell: In the circumstances, I have no wish to precipitate a full-dress debate on this issue. I recognise the gravity of the situation and also the desirability—although that is a very hackneyed expression in this situation—of bringing hostilities to an end. I think we are all agreed on that. We desire to debate this matter objectively or to interrogate the Prime Minister in that temper, because we are primarily concrned with world peace and, if I may say so, the true interests of our own country.
While that is so, I am bound to say that a heavy responsibility rests upon the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government who, it seems to me, have brought about an inevitable situation. For example, the Prime Minister told us in his statement that, in view of the threats uttered by Egypt, in view of the state of tension provoked by Egypt and Egypt's intransigence, some action had to be taken. It is a great pity that the intransigence of Egypt and the constant threats of action against the State of Israel had not been taken into account by Her Majesty's Government a long time ago.
Let me take another illustration of this theme. Time and again, when there have been incursions and raids over the border, perpetrated by Jordan, unofficially or officially, or by Egypt, unofficially or officially, the Armistice Commission, endorsed by Her Majesty's Government, have condemned what were described as


acts of aggression by the State of Israel ; but never a word, or hardly a word, about the repeated incursions and threats and all the rest of it by Egypt, Jordan—and even Iraq and Syria.
These are facts which are well known. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] It is, of course, possible for right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite to ignore facts. They frequently do so. If I may say so, speaking as objectively as I can, it seems to me that they have encouraged themselves a great deal by the information about the possibility of French and British intervention in the Canal not because they take an objective view, but because they want to teach Nasser a lesson. Nor is it because they want to encourage Israel in peaceful development.
This sort of thing will not do. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this matter has been referred to the Security Council. I suppose that is the right thing to do, although I am bound to say that hitherto the decisions of the Security Council and the United Nations Assembly have been either ignored or not implemented by those responsible. Take, for example, the decision reached eight or nine years ago by the Security Council about the free passage of ships, including the ships of the State of Israel, through the Canal. Not a single step was taken to secure the implementation of that decision. These are facts which are well known.
The Prime Minister says that we must extract from the Egyptians a guarantee that they will not interfere with Israeli ships now. It is a pity that they did not think of it before—[HON. MEMBERS : "You were in power."]—and take action on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who talked about sending a gunboat. It is a pity that they did not. It is quite useless for hon. Members opposite to interrupt me. In my long period of agitation in the country, I have been able to deal with malcontents and truculent people of that kind quite effectively. Moreover, I have already said that I am doing my best, perhaps not altogether with success, to deal with the matter as objectively as I can. I am as much interested in the well-being of this country as any hon. Member opposite. I have given proof of that on many occasions.
What I want to know from the Prime Minister is, what does all this mean about French and British intervention? We have apparently given 12 hours' notice to both Israel and Egypt demanding that hostilities should cease ; if not, there will be intervention. What kind of intervention, and against whom? It seems to me that that is a very ambiguous declaration which requires considerable clarification. Is it to be intervention against Israel on the ground that she is described as the aggressor, or is it to be intervention against Nasser and the Egyptians on the ground that they have uttered threats of war against Israel? What is it to be? We ought to know. What is the use of the Prime Minister telling us that if we place our troops, and French troops are equally placed, in the Suez Canal base they are going to be there temporarily? That is not the intention of the Government at all. They are going to be there for a long time indeed.
Finally, I want to put a point which concerns me more than all the rest of it. This business has a very bad history. Let us forget about that. I want to put what I think is the most relevant question of all. Let us assume that Israel agrees to a cessation of hostilities. That is what the Prime Minister wants and what he hopes to extract from the Security Council's deliberations. The question I want to put is : what guarantee can be offered to the State of Israel that there will be no recurrence of these threats and that the provisions of the Tripartite Declaration will be implemented, not only because there is a direct act of aggression but because one of the other parties in the Middle East dispute has uttered threats? That is what we want to know.
Israel wants peace. So do we. Israel wants to proceed with peaceful development. I would just add this. Technically, Israel may be at fault, in terms of the Tripartite Declaration and the provisions of the Charter, but has there been any other country in the Middle East, or, indeed, throughout the whole of the world, which has been more provoked than the State of Israel, which has been threatened, bullied, accused, castigated—and all for what? Because she seeks peaceful development.
As regards Her Majesty's Government and their responsibility, it appears to me


that they were prepared hitherto to sacrifice Israel in order to gain the support of the Arab States, not so much because they wanted the support of the Arab States but because they wanted to ensure that our oil resources were safe. I wish that the Prime Minister would answer the simple question which I have put. Let me tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and on this side of the House, also, that if the question cannot be answered there is no guarantee of peace in the Middle East.

The question which I put, again, is simply this : what guarantee is there, if Israel agrees to a cessation of hostilities, that she will be left alone and in peace to pursue peaceful development? Unless we have a guarantee that is satisfactory to the State of Israel, then, in my judgment, it is hardly worth her while agreeing to a cessation of hostilities. [HON. MEMBERS : "Why?"] Shall I tell hon. Members why? There is no shame about it—because she has got to defend herself. I applaud a nation that seeks to defend itself. [HON. MEMBERS : "Aggression."] What are hon. Members opposite talking about—aggression? Why, this country has risen to great power on aggression. The history of this country consists of a series of aggressions. But I do not want to go into history ; I said that I would not. I can leave that to some other occasion.

I say that there is a responsibility resting upon the shoulders of the Government. They have brought this situation about and now we want to know from them whether they are going to take action which will give Israel some assurance of peace in the future.

The Prime Minister: May I say one word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman? At the beginning of his observations, he said that there was a very heavy responsibility resting upon our shoulders. I accept that. That is absolutely and entirely true. These decisions were arrived at after very careful discussions with our French colleagues. What we hoped for, what we asked for—what we prayed for—is that both parties to whom these appeals have been made will accept them, because if they do accept them then we truly believe that a new era can open in the Middle East.

Major Legge-Bourke: My sole reason for rising is that I think that there are moments when, in this House, we have to put aside all lesser issues and concentrate on what is more important. If there should be any misunderstanding in anyone's mind as to what is the more important, and if anyone feels that he has a contribution to make to clarify the issue, he should stand up and say what he has to say. What I have to say this afternoon is simply this. As the House and the Government know, in 1954 I was in very considerable disagreement with the policy then outlined by the Government. Today I believe that it is the duty of all of us, no matter what may have been our disappointments, no matter what may have been our disagreements in the past, to put the most important issue first.
I believe that today the most important issue is quite simple : whether Britain stands for the preservation of the rule of law or not. I rise, therefore, simply to say that I believe that what the Prime Minister has said today is what he should have said. I entirely support what he has said, and I ask all hon. Members—and all of us have our differences on either side of the House on various issues—to put special pleading of any kind out of their arguments and to concentrate on this question : do we or do we not stand for the preservation of the rule of law?
Was the United Nations set up or was it not to preserve the rule of law, or was it to get peace at any price? I believe that the United Nations was set up to preserve—and, indeed, that British policy always ought to be designed to preserve—the rule of law. I ask the House, with all the sincerity that I can muster, to put away partisan special pleading or the natural sympathy which certain hon. Members have for one side or the other on what is going on in the Middle East and to concentrate on this issue. Let us do all that we can to maintain the rule of law and, for heaven's sake, let Britain speak with one voice.

Mr. Bellenger: I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister which, I hope, he will recognise as a very important one. The Prime Minister told us in his remarks that what, in other days, would have been called an ultimatum had been given to Egypt and Israel to expire in twelve hours. Will the Prime Minister tell us the expiry time? Does


it then follow that if no reply, or an unsatisfactory reply, has been given to what I term an ultimatum, automatically British troops will go into the Canal Zone?
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the House is due to rise the day after tomorrow and the Prime Minister has promised to give the House further information. It seems to me in those circumstances that the House may be denied the opportunity, which obviously we cannot take today, of expressing our views on an issue which may very well be war at the end of twelve hours.

Mr. Gaitskell: I venture to say to the House what I said earlier on, that I do not believe any very useful purpose will be served by continuing the debate now. I believe it is the desire of the House that we should have a little time to reflect before we say anything further. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House if they will give an undertaking that we will debate this matter tomorrow and that the necessary change of business can be made. I also ask the Prime Minister, following on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has said, whether he can possibly give us an assurance that until either the Security Council has reached a decision on this matter, or the House has had an opportunity of discussing it further, no further physical action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: As regards the question about the debate, of course I gladly conform to what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. As regards what I said about the time, I have asked for an answer to these communications within twelve hours and it would not therefore be possible for me to give the undertaking about action for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. The communications were conveyed to the Governments about the same moment as I rose in the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I press the Prime Minister on that for a moment? I am sure he will appreciate that we, the Opposition, represent a very large number of British people, and I think he will agree that we have a right to be heard on this matter and to think over what has been said before we come to any

decision. The Prime Minister has told us of the communications addressed to the Egyptian and Israeli Governments and has told us that an answer has been requested within twelve hours. He has not said that immediately thereafter any particular action would be taken. I was hoping, therefore, that he would agree that no further physical action would be taken until we had had an opportunity of discussing the matter.
I put this further point to him. The matter is being discussed in the United Nations and we do not know exactly what will be said, or what decision will be reached there. Would it not be extremely unwise, therefore, for Her Majesty's Government to reach any irrevocable decision until they know what decisions are taken at the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, I cannot give that undertaking, and I must explain why to the House. The fighting is going on at this moment. I do not have the very latest information, but in all likelihood there is air and other fighting in the very close vicinity of the Canal, perhaps over the Canal, in which we have at the moment large quantities of shipping. That is why we and the French Government thought it absolutely imperative to ask for this temporary measure to be taken now and why we have asked for the replies by the early hours of tomorrow morning. I hope that they will reply by tonight. Therefore, with the best will in the world, I could not give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman that we would not take action.

Mr. Elliot: I am sure the whole House realises that a declaration of the utmost gravity has been made and it is very desirable that an opportunity for reflection should be given. Is it not clear that, as the House continues to sit today, even if this Motion for the Adjournment were withdrawn—the Prime Minister has assured us of his desire to keep the House informed—the Government would not hesitate to tell the House before the conclusion of the sitting of the very latest developments?
I am sure that nothing but damage can arise from a continuation of the debate at the moment, because there is a danger, with the best will in the world, as with the case of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), of


stepping outside the immediate issues which concern us, the great issues which have been brought to our notice. I therefore suggest that it may be for the good of us all that the present debate be terminated by the withdrawal of the Motion for the Adjournment on the understanding that the Motion can again be moved later in the sitting and the House kept informed of the latest development in this very tense situation.

The Prime Minister: I am ready to try to consider how we can work out how to make a further statement on the latest information and the situation as we know it at ten o'clock tonight before the House rises.

Mr. S. Silverman: Everyone has listened with sympathy to the speeches made on both sides of the House to the effect that it would be a great mistake to attempt on short notice, or indeed without notice, and without full information as to the facts to enter into a general debate today. I think that most of us agreed with every word of that, but there would be not the slightest use in refraining from debating today on a promise that we can debate it tomorrow if in the meantime the Government took action which made tomorrow's debate virtually useless, or took action in the meantime which would embarrass not merely this House in coming to a decision, but very likely the Security Council as well in considering the grave issues which are here involved.
I will appeal once again to the right hon. Gentleman. He is giving nothing away by giving the undertaking for which my right hon. Friend so reasonably asked him. All that is being said to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he wants the House of Commons to pause for reflection, the House of Commons is ready to pause for reflection, but he should pause for reflection himself in the meantime. Let the Prime Minister take the same opportunity for second thoughts which he is asking the House to take. Nothing would be lost. Surely nobody in the House, whatever his views about this general question, is anxious to set the Middle East and the world on fire without a few hours' pause for reflection and debate on either side.
I know that there are many of us with very strong feelings. Sometimes strong

feelings are enlisted on one side and sometimes on the other. My own feelings are well known, and I make no secret about them. I have stood here before without much agreement or support from other Members and I have said where my interests lay. However, I am sure that the interests of the world, of Egypt, of the Middle East and of this country will be better served by preserving peace in this area and in the world than by anything else.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not very much to ask, in view of all that is at stake on this issue, as the House of Commons is prepared to wait until tomorrow before debating the issue, that at least we should be assured that in the meantime our hands will not be tied behind our backs with the whole position prejudiced in such a way as to make further discussion useless.

Mr. McAdden: I very rarely intervene in debates of this kind, and I hope the House will bear with me if I express my feelings on the matter. It is wrong to suggest that any action has been taken by this country to set the Middle East aflame. It is unworthy of hon. Members to suggest that such action has been taken. Certainly action has been taken in the Middle East, and it is possible for us, according to our sympathies, to lay the blame on the Arabs or the Israelis for the continued fermentation of trouble in the Middle East.
I, for one, may allege, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will allege, that British foreign policy over the years under both Governments has had its failings, but certainly it has never been the foreign policy of either Government to ferment trouble in the Middle East. One may say that the results have not been as good as we hoped, but certainly that was not the intention or foreign policy of either Government.
Today the Prime Minister has told the House that he has addressed an appeal—[HON. MEMBERS : "Ultimatum."]—all right, an ultimatum—he has given information to the Israeli and Egyptian Governments. He hopes that they will let him know within twelve hours that they have accepted his suggestion to withdraw all the fighting forces so that what


we all desire, peace, can be secured. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend is being attacked because he is not prepared to say here and now that he is not prepared to implement the undertaking which he has given about the use of British and French forces until after a decision has been taken in the House. It seems to me that the responsibility for deciding whether in fact the Prime Minister's words are implemented or not rests just as much upon the people of Israel and Egypt as upon anybody else.
I hope that hon. Members who want to make speeches on this question, if they must address their remarks to somebody, will use the influence and power they possess respectively, as they have it, with Egypt or Israel, to persuade them to adopt the very reasonable suggestion which the Prime Minister has put forward, in order that the peace that I hope all hon. Members want in the Middle East may be secured.

Mr. S. N. Evans: There is much that one could say upon this matter, but this is not the moment to say it. I can understand the Prime Minister's dilemma. It could be that attacks were being made upon British citizens and that men, women and children were in danger, and that he, because of a pledge he had given to this House, was prevented from going to their assistance. I can understand that dilemma. But the last thing I want to see is the House divided at this moment.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could not give a conditional undertaking that, unless there is some special incident of the kind that we can all envisage, he will withhold military action until the House has had an opportunity of discussing this matter. I understand the military difficulties of this situation. This is a very complicated business—a very confused and confusing situation—but it is not immodest for me to say that both the Prime Minister and the House will understand the sense of what I am trying to say. If the Prime Minister could give a qualified assurance of that kind, I think the House would find it satisfactory and be prepared to accept it.

The Prime Minister: I should like to answer the hon. Member's appeal. I think I must explain to the House the difficulties of this position. They are not all easily explicable. It is not only

the position of shipping which is involved ; there is also the question of stopping this fighting before it spreads more widely, and that affects both sides. I do not want to exaggerate too much, but I want to keep the balance even, and it is very difficult to keep the balance even.
It is fair to say that in bombing arms one side is well in advance of the other. I do not say that that should weigh heavily with us ; I do not know. It is difficult to know what things should weigh with us in a situation like this. But that is certainly an element in the situation, and it is an element which made us and the French Government come to the conclusion which I announced to the House just now. It is quite impossible for me to vary that conclusion, which is an Anglo-French conclusion which we agreed with the French Government, but what I readily undertake to do is to come to the House tonight with whatever is the latest information I have. We shall try to arrange the machinery, although I do not know how it can be done, so that at half-past nine or ten o'clock—I do not mind how late it is—I try to give the House all the information I can and so give hon. Members a chance to say what they have to say about the matter. I think that that is the best it is in my power to do.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have no wish to enter into the questions of substance involved. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would give the assurance which I and some of my hon. Friends have asked for. The Prime Minister has his difficulties, but so have we, and we do not wish to find ourselves in a position where things have happened which, as my hon. Friend has said, make a debate somewhat academic.
In these circumstances, I propose that the Prime Minister gives us what further information is available, say, at nine o'clock ; that the Rule be suspended, and that we then have at least a three hours' debate in order that we may discuss the situation between nine o'clock and midnight.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been thinking about the technical point of the suspension of the Rule. It appears that we have no power to suspend the Rule now, because we did


not do it at the right time. We could suspend the Rule only under guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, which would mean a breach of Standing Orders. I should like to seek your guidance on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: A very difficult position has arisen. A Motion to suspend Standing Order No. 1 usually requires notice ; it usually appears upon the Order Paper according to the rules of the House. I wonder whether nine o'clock is the best time to give the additional information. If an earlier statement were made, the House would at least have two hours in which to debate it.

Mr. Bowles: I feel quite certain that, during the time when the Labour Government were in power, the Rule was suspended by a Cabinet Minister without notice appearing on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: That may be so. I shall have to inquire into that, but my impression is that notice should normally appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Bowles: I remember the occasion quite well.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member can look it up for me.

Mr. Healey: Whether or not we have a debate this evening, there is some information which the Prime Minister should give us immediately. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) expressed a view which I know is sincerely held by many Members, that the Government's action is intended to uphold the rule of law; but there are also many Members, of whom I am one, who as a result of what the Prime Minister has so far said, have a feeling that this Government and the French Government are taking the law into their own hands.
I should, therefore, like to ask the Prime Minister if he will now answer certain questions. The British and French Governments are by no means the only Governments which have obligations in this area, nor are they the only Governments whose nationals and interests may be threatened if the fighting continues. The Prime Minister has said that he believes he is acting in the spirit of the Tripartite Agreement. But

the United States of America is also a signatory to that Agreement. The first question I want to ask the Prime Minister is this : were the United States Government consulted when the British and French Governments took the decision which the Prime Minister has announced, and did they approve of that decision?
Secondly, some of our allies in the Middle East are vitally concerned with any action which may be taken and, while I do not in any way wish to inflame passions at this moment, I would point out that feeling among our Arab allies is extremely hostile to the French Government, particularly as a result of events during the last seven days. I should therefore like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has consulted our allies in Jordan and Iraq upon the steps which he proposes to take, and whether they approve?
Thirdly, the Commonwealth is vitally concerned, no less than we are, in the safety and security of the Canal, and I hope that this Government take seriously the view of their friends who are also members of the Commonwealth. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether the Commonwealth Governments have been consulted about this decision and whether they have approved of it.
One final question. The British people are also vitally concerned to prevent any step being taken which may lead to general hostilities between this country and the whole of the Arab world, with a majority of the United Nations opposed to us. I cannot feel that the Prime Minister has done his duty if he has taken this step without prior consultation with the Opposition. As a back bench Member of the Opposition, I should like to know what steps the Prime Minister has taken to obtain the support of at least half the country before taking so grave a step.
The step which he has threatened to take is a military ultimatum by two Governments against two others. If the Prime Minister is correct in suggesting that unfavourable replies may be received and, therefore, that action may be taken even during the night, we may have a position tomorrow in which British tanks are shooting down women and children in the streets of Port Said. If this is not the case, how do the Government propose to


implement their threat to occupy the Canal? This, after all, is the subject we are all discussing—the question of peace and war—and I think it would be both a crime and a tragedy if at the moment when freedom and national independence are being suppressed by Russian tanks in Hungary, this Government did anything without international support which led to a similar impression being given to world opinion.

The Prime Minister: I am perfectly prepared to answer. I have explained to the House the circumstances in which this situation arose last night, and the House knows the action we have taken. We have been in close communication not only with the United States Government, but also with the Security Council to whom we have sent these proposals. We have also kept in close consultation with the Commonwealth Governments, but the responsibility for the decision was that of the French and British Governments owing to the information reaching us of the situation in the neighbourhood of the Canal. I do not believe that any other course would have been open to any Government.

Mr. R. Bell: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, concerning the number of speeches which a right hon. or hon. Member is allowed to make on the Question now before the House?

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member can only speak more than once with the leave of the House. I feel it would be convenient if the questions which hon. Members may wish to ask were all put first and answered together. I cannot see how they can be answered one after the other like this without a breach of custom. I think the mistake has arisen because it is customary in a statement made after Questions for supplementary questions to follow one after another. But now that we are on the Motion for the Adjournment, it would be better if speeches were made and questions asked and answered.

Mr. Elliot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken and can speak again only with the leave of the House.

Mr. Elliot: May I have the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have the leave of the House.

Mr. Nicholson: I venture to express my opinion, which is this. The ordinary humble people of this country will hold the Government very much to blame unless they take the most urgent and quick action to stop this conflagration. It is as if a house caught fire and people on either side of the house were spending time discussing which fire brigade should put out the fire. The Prime Minister will have the support of the whole country in taking the most immediate and urgent steps to preserve the peace and to put out the conflagration.

Mr. J. Hynd: There are still a number of questions that the Prime Minister has not answered and which I think must be answered before we go very much further. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) as to what was the consultation with the American Government under the Tripartite Agreement and what was their reply. I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to that question. I should also, quite briefly, like to ask one or two other questions. In his statement the Prime Minister told us that we had an assurance from Israel yesterday that she would not invade Jordan, so, presumably, when we received that assurance we were in discussion with the Israeli authorities about their intention to invade Egypt.

The Prime Minister: Late last night—I said it quite distinctly.

Mr. Hynd: Late last night we had an assurance from the Israeli Government that they would not invade Jordan, presumably at our request because of our commitments with Jordan.

The Prime Minister: I do not want any further misunderstanding. Over and over again, both privately and publicly, we made clear to the Israeli Government our position with regard to Jordan. Therefore, it is not only natural, but proper, that Israel should have said to us what her position was.

Mr. Hynd: Precisely, and we got that assurance from Israel late last night. She proceeded to invade Egypt. We had an assurance that she would not invade


Jordan. The reason she invaded Egypt, the Prime Minister told us was because of the raids over the border. Those raids about which Israel has been complaining were from Jordan and not from Egypt.
Now a question about the ultimatum we have given. We are told that, in any case, it may be necessary to defend British lives. There has been no threat to British lives as far as I am aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East has pointed out that there are other lives there besides British lives. For instance, there are American lives, but America, apparently, is not taking any action. Why is it thought that British lives will not be threatened for twelve hours but will be threatened after twelve hours? The action which the Government are taking and the threats they are making are precisely the kind of things likely to create a situation in which British lives will be endangered.
There are many on this side of the House and in the country who are not quite ready to accept the naïve statement made to us by the Prime Minister, because we are very well aware of the fact that for a long time past the Prime Minister and the Government have been determined to find some excuse for landing British troops in the Canal area. That has been made obvious from all the statements made and we are not quite so simple as to believe that this is out of the Government's mind in connection with the ultimatum they have given.
Therefore, in the event of landing troops, against any opposition from these benches or elsewhere, can we have a direct assurance from the Prime Minister that immediately there is a withdrawal of Israeli troops beyond the frontier, and when we are sure the situation has been settled, the troops will be withdrawn from the zone irrespective of the situation between ourselves and Nasser vis-à-vis the Canal problem?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As a humble back bencher, it seems to me that what has escaped the notice of hon. Members opposite is that a state of war exists at the present time in the region of the Suez Canal and that if this state of war is not checked the consequences will very rapidly affect British subjects in British

ships and also British civilians in the Suez base. That is something that obviously cannot be allowed to happen.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether, if the state of war is continuing in twelve hours' time, we are not acting correctly in putting troops into the area under the spirit of the Tripartite Agreement to act as buffers or policemen with a view to damping down hostilities. Surely, on these two grounds, and particularly on the ground that there are British civilians in the Suez base, we are perfectly justified in taking action if hostilities have not finished in twelve hours' time.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his use of the word "temporarily". I presume the right hon. Gentleman means that after the twelve-hour ultimatum has expired British troops may, and probably will, go into the Canal Zone as a temporary measure. Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that those troops will be withdrawn as soon as the Israeli-Egyptian clash is over, or temporarily settled, and that the occasion will not be used to keep British troops in the Canal Zone in furtherance of the dispute between ourselves and the Egyptian Government? On that I want a categorical assurance.

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

Mr. Winterbottom: Is the answer "Yes "?

The Prime Minister: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question in an earlier statement.

Mr. Paget: Various questions have been asked here which seem completely to confuse this issue. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) talked about the rule of law. In this context that is not an argument, it is a slogan. To say who is the aggressor here and who is not is an impossibility. The war has been maintained all this time. The issue before us—and let us recognise this frankly—is one of policy, one to confine this conflagration.
Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) talked about maintaining the peace. It seemed to me a slightly odd argument that when the peace was clearly broken because a war was on, we maintained it


by guaranteeing that the policeman would not do anything. I do not honestly think that that sort of argument takes us very far.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend will agree that this is far too serious a matter for debating points, however clever or specious. What the Government are proposing to do, and to commit the House to doing before the House has an opportunity of discussing it, is to take British and French troops back to the Suez Canal area, exactly as they wanted to do before any of this trouble started. My hon. and learned Friend knows too much about the law to get the burglar mixed up with the policeman.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly regard this as much too serious a question to be taken lightly. Therefore, I am trying to define the issues.
As my hon. Friend says, the question as to what one does to try to limit this conflagration, whether it be for peace or against peace, is a matter of policy ; and it is in terms of policy, not of legality, that we have to think about this. This event which has happened is the prophesied and inevitable result of the weakness of the Government at the time of Suez. In August we told the Government exactly what would happen if they took the course which in fact they took, and it has happened. What do we do now?
I would just say this for Israel. Israel has been living under a nervous tension and the threat of war for seven years. Her people have had to build a new country, to till the desert and to guard post every night. That has been a condition which has been imposed on Israel for seven years, and for those seven solid years she has kept the peace. Now, apparently, she has taken a grim decision. With a united command all round her, with the West showing evidence that it was not prepared to take action, she had to take action for herself. Really, to demand of her that she stop that action on our say-so is unrealistic.
This is where I join with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has said. If we are to be realistic in the request—and it cannot be more than a request, we certainly have no right to do more than request in view of our policy—to Israel to change her action of policy, which at long last she has

found necessary for her defence, we must offer her some form of safety. That is the essential thing. We cannot ask her to stop without giving her some promise of safety, some promise of action on our part which, when applied, will foe sufficient. I ask the Government to be realistic.
My right hon. Friend's question has not yet been answered. What guarantee can we give to Israel to ask her to restore the peace? That must be answered, that must be the demand. I hope that answer can be given now or later this evening. After all, Israel—in her own view at any rate, and in mine, too—is defending her life and her existence after a terrible experience in which the very existence of the Jewish people throughout the world has been threatened. We should regard this with a little sympathy.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think it evident that the spirit of the House is that there should, if possible, be a short suspension so that people may think over these issues. I was going to make a formal request to you, Mr. Speaker, that I should as Leader of the House be allowed to move a Motion to suspend the Standing Order. That, so far as I can see, would be the only way in which it would be possible to suspend, and in that way to have our sitting protracted tonight beyond ten o'clock so as to give more opportunity for hon. Members to take part.
I have to make this formal request to you, Mr. Speaker and in the event of your granting it—this happened during the war—we could then suspend, on notice being given at this late hour. If you are unable to accept that suggestion, I can only make an alternative suggestion now so as not to rise again later. That would be that we meet again after the next Order—that is the Fat Stock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment No. 2) Order—at, say, eight o'clock and debate the matter for the rest of the time until ten in the evening. That is on your Ruling that it is impossible to suspend the Order.
In one or other of these ways we should have time for reflection. We would then proceed to the next Order and, on that understanding, the Government would request the withdrawal of the Motion now before us for the Adjournment of the House. Therefore, I ask your formal permission, Mr. Speaker,


to suspend the Order and in the event of your not being able to grant that, I suggest the other alternative.

Mr. Speaker: I am, of course, bound by the Standing Order which says that a Motion to exempt business from the operation of the Standing Order can be done without notice, but at the commencement of public business, and that is not now.
Of course, the House can do what it likes, but I am bound to say that I consider it most undesirable to break the rules of the House. Those rules are there for the protection of hon. Members, particularly of minorities, and if the House once made a precedent of breaking them and suspended the whole Standing Order so as to allow this to be done, I think it would be most unfortunate.
It may be said that these are exceptional circumstances, but in my long experience in this House I have found that exceptional circumstances frequently arise. I would give my humble counsel to the House to abide by the rule. I believe it is a wise thing. In these circumstances I could not accept such a Motion. If the House over-rules me it is the affair of the House, but it would be against my earnest counsel.

Mr. Gaitskell: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have no alternative but to accept the other suggestion made by the Lord Privy Seal; that is to say, that we should have a further statement from the Prime Minister at about eight o'clock, and we should then continue the debate

until the usual time, ten o'clock. While it is not entirely satisfactory, I commend that as the best available course to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Shinwell: Since he is dealing with this matter, may I ask this of the Lord Privy Seal? I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about procedure—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] Is it not permissible in a free country to offer advice? It does not appear right, in spite of the suggestions which have been made from this side of the House, that the Government will agree not to undertake any physical action in the Suez Canal. Would it not be very much better, instead of having another statement tonight, and a "scratch" debate lasting until, say, ten o'clock, or eleven o'clock or perhaps twelve o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS : "Ten o'clock."] All right, ten o'clock, or whatever it may be—a "scratch" debate which would lead to no satisfactory result, to have a full-dress debate tomorrow when further information is available to the House? Would that not be far better than a "scratch" debate tonight?

Mr. R. A. Butler: We have to deal with things in the light of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. As you have used the expression that it is your earnest wish that we should follow your advice, I feel, in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, that we have no alternative but to accept it. In the circumstances, our only hope tonight is to adopt the procedure suggested, and that would leave tomorrow without prejudice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE (FATSTOCK PAYMENTS)

5.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
The purpose of the amending Order is to enable supplementary payments to be made to beef producers whose cattle have been certified, or will be certified, for guarantee payments during the present fatstock year, which ends on 24th March, 1957.
These supplementary payments are in no sense an extra bonus to farmers, but are payments which we believe are necessary to enable the Government to implement this year the price guarantees that were given after the last Annual Price Review. Last February, producers were told that we needed still more good-quality beef. To encourage this, the Government increased the standard price for fat cattle by 12s. 4d., to 151s. per live cwt. This is an average level of guarantee for the year as a whole. The supplementary payment, which will amount to about 11s. per cwt. and which I announced last Thursday, is designed to approximate the producers' returns for the current fatstock year to the standard price of 151s.
How close we get to the 151s. after making these payments is bound to depend on the course of market prices during the remainder of the year. Farmers' representatives and we are agreed that the payment we are now proposing is based on the best estimate that can be at present made of future market prices. Hon. Members may ask me why not wait until the end of the fatstock year before making good this deficiency. My answer is that if we did that we would be keeping producers out of their money for a longer time. The earlier payment we are proposing will not only assist producers, particularly the small producers, but will avoid the risk of any further adverse effect on the sale of store cattle.
This supplementary payment of about 11s. per cwt. is an average for the whole year. With the agreement of the National

Farmers' Unions we have decided to graduate the payments so as to secure as fair a distribution of the total sum available as possible over the whole year. The supplementary payments, as hon. Members will have seen if they looked at the list I published, are highest during the earlier part of the year when the guarantees under the rolling average were lowest, and are lowest during the final period of the year when the ordinary guarantee payments should be at their highest. I gave full details of these graduated payments in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) on 25th October, and I do not think there is any need for me to repeat the details now.
I emphasise that the graduated payments which we have agreed with the National Farmers' Unions do no more than remedy a defect of the present guarantee system by bringing the payments more in line with what they would have been for each period if the system had reflected the price movements of recent months more promptly.
Let us examine the present system for a moment to see what the defect is. The guarantee payment, as hon. Members will remember, is the difference between the standard price fixed at the Annual Price Review and the average realisation price, calculated over the preceding 52 weeks. That system has been in force since decontrol in July, 1954. By and large, it has not worked badly. In fact, for sheep and pigs it has worked very well indeed during the present year.
We have, however, found that it does not respond sufficiently quickly to abnormally sharp and sustained movements in market prices. This year the trend of cattle prices has been downwards, and because the high prices of last year were still in the 52-week calculation the payments made during the earlier months of the present livestock year were very low in relation to the market prices of the time. Because market prices have continued to fall, the guarantee payments, although they have been rising substantially each month, have not succeeded in catching up, with the result that as the year progressed it became clear that there would be a substantial shortfall of the standard price of 151s. by the end of the fatstock year.


The extent of the shortfall would have been nothing like so striking but for the fact that we made a substantial increase in the standard price after the last Annual Price Review. It was a conjunction of two circumstances : the increase we made in the standard price and a substantial drop which followed in the market prices. They created an unusually wide gap that the rolling average method has been slow to fill. If we were to continue with the present system without a supplementary payment the shortfall would certainly eventually be made good, but it would take a long time. In our opinion, in view of the size of the shortfall it would take too long a period to make it reasonable to continue with the system.
Hon. Members may remember that in the White Paper which we issued after the last Annual Price Review we included a paragraph to the effect that it was never possible to hit off the standard price exactly over the course of 12 months, and that has proved the case over the past few years. In some cases there has been an overpayment and in some cases an underpayment.
The point which I want to make is that owing to the excessive drop in market prices it became clear by about August or September that the shortfall would be considerable. This explains briefly what the supplementary payments are and why we are making them. Hon. Members may recall that I have frequently said in the past few months that I was not irrevocably wedded to the rolling average method but that I thought it would be wrong to discard it until, by general agreement, we had found a method which seemed likely to give better results. I also said that I thought it would be a mistake to change the system in the middle of a year, but that if a better method could be found I was very ready to consider it for a future year.
When a method has proved unsatisfactory in administration, I think that is quite a sensible line to take. Hon. Members opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in particular, may remember that their Government withdrew two schemes, a petrol rebate scheme and a marginal production scheme, because they did not produce, in practice, the results which had been expected and relied on.
Some hon. Members may blame imports for the fall in market prices. I should like, first, to remind the House that prices of beef last year were abnormally high, and the present lower prices must, I think, be looked at in their proper perspective. Secondly, while it is perfectly true that there has been this year, and will continue to be, substantially increased shipments of chilled beef compared with last year, these Argentine imports, again, must be looked at in their proper perspective. This year, for the first time since the war, the consumption of beef in this country will be just about back to the pre-war consumption. For other meat it will be a little above the pre-war consumption. I am glad to say that the proportion of home-killed beef to total supplies is now about 63 per cent. compared with about 52 per cent. before the war.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend give the figures of the consumption for beef, mutton and pork?

Mr. Amory: I have got them but if my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me, I will ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will speak at the end of the debate, to quote the figures in aggregate.
In spite of those increased chilled beef imports, the Argentine shipments are still only about two-thirds of what they were before the war, and they account today for about 20 per cent. of our total beef supplies compared with about 30 per cent. before the war.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend speaking particularly of chilled beef?

Mr. Amory: I was speaking of total beef from the Argentine, representing two-thirds of what they were before the war, I think, but I will check on that point. My hon. Friend knows that at the moment chilled beef dominates the position and that the importance of frozen beef is declining very rapidly.
I should like to emphasise that without these imports the public would not be getting today the amount and quality of meat they want. I would further remind the House that we are still very moderate meat eaters in this country compared with


some of our friends overseas, in particular in the United States, Australia and Canada. I believe that in these times of full employment and higher living standards there is plenty of scope still to increase our consumption of meat, and such increased consumption could be met at present only by larger supplies from both home production and imports.
I should now like to say a word about the new system which we have in mind and which I confidently hope will make supplementary payments unnecessary in the future. First, it is clear, I think, that if the guarantee system is to be proof against the sort of price movement which we have had this year, we cannot continue to base the scheme on as long an accounting period as 52 weeks.
We must also keep well in mind that we cannot have it completely both ways. If we speed the process up we must lose something, and in this case what we shall lose, I think, to either a small or a greater degree—depending on how far we go—are the benefits of the free play of the market. In devising the new scheme we have to find where the best balance appears to lie between full market play plus guaranteed returns, which, in practice, have come in too slowly, on the one hand, and, on the other, no market play at all and virtually fixed prices.
We and the National Farmers' Union, with whom we have had most helpful and amicable discussions on this matter, have thought up quite a number of possible new schemes. Most of them we have together discarded for one reason or another, and I do not think I need bother the House with them. We have been keen to find as simple a scheme as we can so that everyone will have the best chance of understanding it, and I am sure that that is an objective which will appeal to every hon. Member who has tried to understand the rolling average system.
One simple method would be to have a standard price and then at the end of each month to work out a straightforward deficiency payment which would bring the actual average return for the month to the standard price. This method would have the virtue of extreme simplicity and would also make sure that over the year the results would be very close indeed to the standard price determined at the

Annual Review, but, unfortunately, as so often happens, the most attractive and simplest scheme has serious drawbacks. One of these drawbacks would be that a farmer would have to wait for at least a month for the guarantee payment, and to many, not least to the smaller farmers, that would be a serious burden. There would also be the uncertainty during the month of the size of the guarantee payment, and that might have a seriously disturbing effect on the market, particularly on the market for store cattle.
Finally, individuals and organisations who prefer trading on a grade and deadweight basis and want to quote comprehensive prices would be at a disadvantage since an important part of their return would not be known until the end of the month. It has always been a principle that the guarantee system should be neutral as far as possible between one method of marketing and another and in this respect the system which I have just described would be seriously deficient.
For these reasons, the farmers' representatives made it clear to us that they would greatly prefer another alternative. To be satisfactory, the alternative scheme must provide, as hitherto, that the guarantee payment for each period should be known in advance, and also that the payments should be made weekly. That is one of the requirements which the new scheme must meet. Another is that the period which we take into account for determining the deficiency should be a good deal shorter than 52 weeks, and our present intention is to base our accounting on a four-week period instead.
We also propose to include the safeguard that was introduced this year—fixing stabilising limits on either side of the standard price so as to ensure that the weekly returns cannot fluctuate violently from the standard price. In the circumstances of this year, the stabilisation adjustments we used have proved, I think, rather too wide, and in future we shall take a narrower range. If we do that, we shall also have a seasonal scale for cattle and sheep, but I do not think that it will be necessary to have one for pigs.
Those are the principles of the new system which we are proposing. They have the full backing of the producers' representatives, who believe, as we believe after recent experience, that a


system based on these principles is the most reasonable that we can devise in the light of the whole of our experience during the past two and a half years. The new system will come into force at the beginning of the next livestock year, which will be 25th March, 1957. We are now working out the full details, which I hope to publish shortly. The precise figures of standard prices, and the stabilising limits and seasonal scales will of course be determined, in the usual way, as a result of the next Annual Price Review.
Hon. Members may wonder why we are not proposing to go over to the new system at once, instead of at the end of the year. Briefly, the answer is that if we were to do that we should run a risk of not being fair to those producers who have been reckoning on the steadily rising guarantee payments month by month for their expected returns during the last six months of the year. Then, again, the producers' representatives are fully in agreement with us that it would be better to leave the present system working, with this supplementary payment, for the remainder of the current year.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that the Government have faith in the future of the livestock industry ; and that faith has been fully justified by the steady rise in the numbers of our livestock during recent years. We confidently expect the numbers to go on rising, and so provide us with a still larger share of our meat requirements. The Government have said on a number of occasions that we want the efficient production of livestock in this country to be profitable, and to remain profitable. We have already undertaken that next year's standard price for cattle will be not less than the increased price we offered this year of 151s.
I believe that that, together with this promise of a new method of computing the guarantee payments, and the supplementary payments that we are proposing in this Order, afford firm and practical evidence of the Government's intention to provide a long-term foundation for our livestock industry.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Perhaps the only kindly remarks I am likely to make in the course of my speech I had better make now. I certainly hope

that the right hon. Gentleman will produce something of extreme simplicity, as he mentioned, and something that is not likely to break down in the first three or four months of its operation, because that is really what we are discussing in relation to this Order.
After listening to the Minister's apologia—and it can be nothing else—for the latest in the series of confidence-shattering muddles, hon. Members in all parts of the House might do worse than to re-read his speech in the debate on 30th April last. On that occasion he was in no sort of doubt about the rightness, the fairness and the wisdom of all the decisions in the Price Review. Of course, hon. Members will recall that he won a glorious victory for his party in the Division Lobby, but just six months later—and only six months today—some of the chickens have come home to roost ; in fact, the whole farmyard has come home to roost. The rightness, fairness and wisdom claim is completely disproved.
As I see it, the Government stand condemned for having "stolen" a Division based on false evidence. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the fatstock scheme has collapsed, as most of us on these benches—and, I believe, some of those on the benches opposite—really expected that it would. Now, we have the financial ambulance brigade coming to the rescue.
The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that what we are offering the industry today is no part of the results of the February Price Review, but a supplementary payment which was decided upon, if not at, then immediately before the Conservative Party Conference. I do not object to the Government making a virtue of necessity, but we certainly have every right to protest as vigorously as we can against the Government's ineptitude in blundering on from one muddle to another, and certainly undermining the stability and confidence of the industry.
It is not enough—and I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind when he makes his next big agricultural speech—for him to quote the March returns or, indeed, any other returns to prove that everything in the garden is lovely and that there is nothing at all to worry about. He knows that farmers both


large and small have, over the past ten years, invested hundreds of millions of pounds in their undertakings. They just cannot afford not to take chances, in spite of the uncertainties created by the Government's policies. They must either go on, go out or go under, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that. It seems to me to be rather indecent to use their loyalty, sagacity and determination to save the face of the Government from time to time.
What astonishes me, on occasion, is the super-optimism of the Minister, and the acute way in which he tries to dub those on these benches as ultra-pessimists. That is a very old trick, and the right hon. Gentleman is by no means the first Minister who has had to whistle to keep his pecker up. He whistled good and proper on 30th April this year for, reproving my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) for attempting to give the Government the cold shivers, he said :
We feel none of the things which the hon. Member implied we ought to feel because we are still completely satisfied that the determinations which have been made were right and fair.
In the same speech he said, later:
I will only say that we have listened carefully to everything that has been said by everybody since the Review, but in the result, if we had to make a Review again tomorrow, it would be the same one as we have already made"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th April, 1956; Vol. 552. c. 45 and 46.]
—presumably the fatstock scheme as well?

Mr. Amory: indicated assent.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman would have given it tomorrow morning as well, despite the fact that within three or four months the scheme had actually broken down. That was an example of abounding confidence, and one cannot help admiring the way in which the right hon. Gentleman transmitted that confidence to members of his own party, most of whom knew nothing at all about it.
There was, however, a bit of the confidence trickster about it or, to be more generous, a colossal ignorance of the facts of life regarding the marketing of fat cattle. The Minister was not quite so successful in persuading the farming community. Otherwise, resolutions of protest

would not have been pouring in from National Farmers' Union branches all over the country. Not even the valiant efforts of the Prime Minister, when he addressed that mass meeting of 16 hand-picked Warwick farmers in private could quell the riot. I say "a mass meeting of 16" because that is all the Prime Minister, or somebody on his behalf, undertook to address. The reasons, therefore, are not difficult to see. Indeed, the Minister has explained some of them when he proposed this Order.
But there were many other matters involved on 30th April—the spreadover of prices, under-recoupment, the estimated net income, and the important item of the removal of the individual guarantee which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention this afternoon. It would be out of order to discuss all these items today, and I have no desire to do so, but it must be relevant to mention one or two of the chief causes of resentment accumulating in the countryside which finally led to this Order.
This is not quite the first time, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there has been under-recoupment at a February Price Review. Indeed, if things remained constant it would be reasonable for the Government to expect some sort of a dividend on the capital provided between 1947 and 1950 from increased efficiency. But things have not remained constant under this Government—far from it. Every hon. Member knows that.
Speaking a few days ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world but are living on the edge of a precipice. Presumably he meant that we are either spending too much or producing too little. Last week he told us that the value of the £ had depreciated by one-sixth since 1951. So if we compare the net income of the farming community in 1949–50 as £306 million, with the estimated net income for 1956–57 as £299 million, we find that there is a direct reduction of £7 million and an indirect reduction by depreciation of £50 million for 10 per cent. more food.
While beef producers have been in travail over the past several months, thanks to the "rock 'n' roll" scheme failure, other farmers have also had their financial difficulties. I intend to call one or two witnesses from the Minister's own party before I sit down, to say why there


is such widespread dissatisfaction in the countryside. First, there is the early demise of the unwanted rolling average scheme and the removal of the individual guarantee. Hon. Members may recall that before the last February Review there was an individual guarantee and a collective guarantee for fat stock which, although complicated, was, I believe, towards the end working reasonably well. But these were abolished and a new system was introduced known as the rolling average.

Mr. Amory: The rolling average has worked ever since July, 1954.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but side by side with an individual guarantee and without the sort of formula that is associated with this rolling average scheme. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there always has been some sort of a seasonal price.

Mr. Amory: indicated assent.

Mr. Williams: We have never had a spread-over for 12 months in the same way as there has been under this rolling average ; otherwise, there would have been the same breakdown.

Mr. Amory: On the contrary, the rolling average system has been untouched since July, 1954, and has worked precisely in the same way. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the individual Review was revised but, taking the whole period since 1954 until the end of last March, there has been quite a substantial overpayment and not an underpayment on beef.

Mr. Williams: I was coming to that in a moment.
The individual guarantee was abolished at the last February Review. Basically, this Order emerges because of the removal of the individual guarantee. On the face of it, this new scheme looked attractive—almost as attractive, for instance, as the Lord Privy Seal's speech at the National Farmers' Union dinner prior to the last Election. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber in time. If I may say so, it was equally as fraudulent as this new fatstock scheme. There was an apparent increase of 12s. per cwt. on fat cattle prices. I see that the Lord Privy Seal is leaving us again. I suppose that that

observation is sufficient to turn any Minister out.
As I was saying, there was an apparent increase of 12s. per cwt. on the fat cattle prices, but associated with this alleged increase there was a formula which few farmers really understood. There was a floating figure ranging between 128s., 151s. and 174s. per cwt., but the final price to the producer was determined by the average auction price for the last 12 months. It was all very simple. At least, this scheme was introduced on the basis that it was going to simplify administration. I can only say that it is a good job that they did not introduce a complicated scheme.
It soon became obvious that the alleged increase of 12s. was an illusion and there was nothing in the formula to prevent falling returns to the producer, or there would be no necessity for this £11 million supplementary payment. Surely that is obvious. The average auction prices were linked with the higher prices received last year. As the right hon. Gentleman has already said, it works slowly. In other words, the beef producers had had it, and they could not have it again. It is difficult for me to believe that the Minister and the Government did not know what they were doing. The Minister told us on 30th April that he had done some farming and had also done some grumbling. I suppose he would, and I suppose he thought there was "a better 'ole" than farming. I hope he was more successful at farming than he appears to be at Whitehall Place. At least, he advised the Government to endorse his new scheme.
However, as auction mart prices fell by approximately 25 per cent. between April and September, so did producers' returns, despite the increased guarantee payment and the stabilising adjustment. In fact, on only two occasions in 28 weeks have they been within 10s. per cwt. of the coveted 151s. per cwt., and for the remainder of the period they are down from 17s. to £1 per cwt.
That figure could mean ruin to tens of thousands of beef producers in this country, particularly among the small men. Curiously enough, the housewife has got nothing out of it at all. Despite the fact that prices per cwt. fell from 134s. in April to 100s. in October, my wife tells me that beef prices in the butchers' shops are today just what they were six months


ago ; so there is no redeeming feature even there.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman : why did two practical farmers forget the seasonal variation in prices which should cater for the yard fed animals and the cheaper grass fed animals? At least, it would have helped to preserve the balance of marketing and prevent overloading of the market in autumn with scarcity of supplies in late winter and early spring. But that is exactly what we might expect from a Tory Administration. The right hon. Gentleman consulted the experts, the National Farmers' Union and the rest, and he said, "After listening to everybody and everything, we should do the same sort of thing tomorrow".
The danger of the removal of the individual guarantee was clearly foreseen by the N.F.U. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and almost every hon. Member who spoke from these benches deprecated the removal of the individual guarantee, and practically foresaw the collapse of the new scheme. How right they were is proved by this Order today to provide a supplementary retrospective payment down to the 26th March.
I shudder to think what might have happened to a Labour Government who had blundered so badly and so often with their various schemes. Probably they would have been hounded out of office by the so-called popular Press, for, whatever the Minister's responsibilities, it certainly is the general policy of the Government which has been responsible for the series of crises through which the industry has passed during the last few years. Their unseemly haste to dismantle every control before they have thought out alternative methods of guaranteeing prices or marketing produce has not only unsettled the industry, but has certainly jeopardised the campaign for increased efficiency, which every hon. Member from the countryside must know can prosper only in an atmosphere of stability and continuity.
First, we had the pig muddle which lost the country millions of pounds and cost the pig producers millions of pounds. Then we had the do's and don'ts of tillage, which lost us a million acres of tillage in less than three years. Now we have the "rock 'n roll" of beef prices, which has shaken that section of the industry to its very foundation.
Is there any wonder, then, that National Farmers' Union branches pass resolutions of no confidence in the Government? As one very efficient, well-known farmer put it to me, even in an age of planning it is difficult to visualise a more ridiculous situation than this. Not only has there been a complete lack of realism displayed but a vivid example has been given of what is bound to happen when livestock policies are interfered with just when they have begun to settle down.
The Government are wholly to blame for the situation. After all, the February Review was conducted with full knowledge, by the Government at least, of the imminent threat of large imports of beef from the Argentine made possible by the depreciation of her currency, imports which home producers could not possibly hope to compete with in those abnormal circumstances. If the Minister realised that—and he should have done as an ex-Minister of State—and did nothing about it, then it almost amounts to chicanery to boast of a possible 12s. per cwt. increase when there was no possibility of reaching that figure in the set of circumstances likely to follow the conclusion of the February Review.
We on these benches are not the only ones to condemn the Government for their short-term shifts and changes in policy, particularly short-term shifts over livestock. Boiling down all the multitude of resolutions which went into the Conservative Party Conference, this composite resolution emerged, probably the weakest that the delegates could be persuaded to accept:
That this Conference recognises that home agriculture can and must make its maximum contribution to our balance of payments programme. That in order to do so arrangements must be made under which the industry can plan ahead and undertake the necessary investment in the knowledge that short-term shifts of emphasis or changes in economic policy will not undermine its efforts.
I thought it was a very good resolution. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to accept it. The second part of it, which I did not intend to read, declares that
within the principles of the Agriculture Act. 1947, and the Agricultural Marketing Acts
means can and must be found to do the job properly. Since the Labour Government passed both the 1947 Act and the original Marketing Act, we thank the


right hon. Gentleman for the compliment he paid us when he said he was willing to accept the resolution.
Mr. Donald Goodwin, a Cheshire farmer, speaking to the resolution, said, among other things :
Farmers encouraged to switch to beef were losing money heavily for their pains. At its best,
he concluded,
farmers feel that the Government have temporarily lost their way in agriculture.
I entirely agree with him.
The gloomier view would be that bit by bit the 1947 Act is being dismantled. It is a matter of the utmost urgency that farmers' confidence should be restored"—
If it had not been lost, it need not be restored, need it?
It is a matter of the utmost urgency that farmers' confidence should be restored by practical proposals at the earliest possible moment.
And so say all of us. I hope that he got a very great cheer for that speech.
Then came Colonel A. J. W. Grubb, with one or two forthright observations ; and when Colonel Grubb talks about "grub," he knows what he is talking about.
A great many small farmers will not continue to support our party unless they feel the Government really mean to support a stable agriculture by action as well as words. Lately, too many sights have been shifted too abruptly from too many targets for the peace of mind of many of us. Make no mistake, this discontent in agriculture is reaching alarming proportions. If the Minister thinks otherwise, he is sadly out of touch with the rank and file of farming today.
I could not have done it better myself. I congratulate Colonel Grubb on his observations.
We now get this Order today. The Government are really hoist with their own petard, for they fix a "phoney" figure which they never expected to have to pay, and they are soon caught out by events. One can imagine the hurry, the scurry and shuffle at the Tory Party Conference, at Llandudno, where the warning to the right hon. Gentleman was loud and clear. The Chancellor obviously must have been in a dilemma, but he was stampeded into submission. Then the Prime Minister was put up to show what a generous and sympathetic Government we have towards agriculture.
Now the cash is on the table. It is a very lamentable story. We cannot oppose the Order, of course, because it does no more than the justice the beef producers expected in April this year ; but neither can we congratulate the Government or the Minister on the way they have so badly bungled agriculture this year.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Phelim O'Neill: I want to say a few words of welcome for the Order. My welcome is based rather on the joy that exists over a sinner that repenteth, and I feel that I must say to my right hon. Friend, although in all probability it was not him but the Treasury who were to blame, that I think the Order should have been brought in, at the very latest, some time last July. It was quite apparent at that time what would happen, and although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage in coming back and altering a decision, I only wish that he had come back to this House at the very latest last July.
I must, of course, feel rather strongly about beef, because although prices have been extremely low everywhere, nowhere have they been as poor as in Northern Ireland. I feel that a great deal of damage has been done during the last year or so. In my part of the United Kingdom, it has led to a considerable increase in the production of milk, which is likely to be of some embarrassment. It is a pity that when farmers obey the exhortations of the Government, which have been loud and clear during the last two years that they wanted beef, the very fact that they have obeyed those exhortations has landed them in considerable losses.
However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing in the Order. I feel that it will remedy the situation and that we can look to the future in beef with a great deal more confidence than in the past.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: I am sure that the House listened with great interest to the description given by my right hon. Friend of the precise way in which the difficulties, one after another, led up to the need for revising the payments on meat. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the announcement


which was made and which is now being implemented in the Order tonight.
I wonder, however, whether my right hon. Friend has ever considered what is the cause of some of the underlying difficulties. I venture to suggest that the method by which we today market and distribute our meat is entirely out of date and is a survival of the time when feeding stuffs were cheap and when science had not made the strides which it has made in various directions.
I believe that if a means could be found of keeping meat prices level throughout the year, many of the difficulties which are now being found would disappear. It might be possible, by the use of methods of chilling and refrigeration, to cushion our supplies of meat fairly well round the calendar.
At the moment, our economy makes it necessary to finish off our meat on grass. For that reason, there are times of abundant supply and times of shortage. For that reason, too, there are fluctuations in price. If I may quote mutton as an example, during the last 12 months the price for good quality lamb has varied between 2s. 8d. and 3s. 11d. per 1b. best carcase. That is a wide degree of variation.
My point is that if we could use modern methods of refrigeration, which would require a vast replanning of the whole scheme, we could level off the supplies of meat and get an even price to the producer and to the customer and a much lower charge on the Treasury. The present method of supply is rather like trying to give water to a large town which has a small and inadequate reservoir. When there is rain, the people can have a bath, but when the weather is dry they must go dirty. And so prices in our meat markets go up and down, which is precisely the reason for the difficulty which my right hon. Friend is now experiencing.
The Government might well consider in the near future setting up a Select Committee of the House to examine and to report on what could be done to modernise and to economise in our method of marketing and distributing meat.
We welcome the Order in Aberdeenshire because it is a great meat-producing county. I note with interest what my right hon. Friend said about the importation

of Argentine beef. I hope that the Government will keep a very close eye on this aspect, because if they allow meat prices to be artificially depressed by cheap importations they are only making a rod for their own backs in the amount of subsidy which has to be provided. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend should perhaps consider, not the imposition of a tariff, but the regulation of importations from the Argentine by way of quota.
I welcome the Order, and so do the beef producers in Scotland, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the setting up of a Select Committee to examine the whole question of meat distribution.

6.37 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I, too, support and welcome the Order. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had quite a good field day in attacking my right hon. Friend the Minister and in talking about" confidence-shattering muddle" and "false evidence", but I do not believe that confidence has been shattered in the way that the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out.
Before the announcement was made, the industry had settled down to the understanding of the new scheme as it was and was quite prepared to write off the losses it had suffered in the knowledge that over a 52-week average those losses would in time be made up. Although there had been losses, the industry realised that in time they would be made up. I do not, therefore, agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been this shattering lack of confidence.

Mr. T. Williams: Did the hon. and gallant Member listen to the terms of the resolution passed at the Conservative Party Conference, where the resolution demanded that something must be done to restore confidence? If confidence had not been lost, there would be no point in trying to restore it.

Captain Duncan: I know nothing whatever about the Llandudno Conference—that was an English affair—nor do I care about what is said at Llandudno conferences. If anybody wants to say anything about Scottish agriculture, let him come to Scotland to say it.
Was there really the muddle that the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out?


For two main reasons, I do not think that the situation which has arisen could reasonably have been appreciated by the Government at the time of negotiations for the Price Review when the new arrangements were being discussed—that is, at about last Christmas and in January this year. When the discussions started, the price of beef—I am talking of the price at auction marts and not in the retail shops—was in the region of 151s. I have the actual figures here week by week for one of my own auction marts.
It was reasonable at that time, as far as one could tell, to assume that those prices would continue. There was no reason to anticipate a fall when these discussions were taking place in January. What happened was that by March prices had gone down from an average of 151s. or so to 130s., for light-weight bullocks by which time, of course, the average for all kinds of beasts was lower still. In giving those figures I was not taking the average of all beasts, but the average for light-weight steers.
Why did that happen? I cannot help suggesting that the main reason for that was the Argentine imports. With the assistance of the Librarian I have got out from the Library a table showing the figures of imports of Argentine beef of all kinds, not only chilled, though the figures for chilled are the main ones, of course, for the first nine months, month by month, for 1955 and 1956. They show that whereas in January, 1955, the figure was 20,000 tons or so, by March, 1956, it was over 35,000 tons, 756,000 cwts. to be exact. Compare the figures for March, May, June, July and August of 1955 with those of the same months of 1956, and we find there has been a very large increase in the imports of Argentine beef this year over last.
That is a factor which must be taken into consideration with the fact that the home supplies have also been increasing. My right hon. Friend said we had now reached in the total consumption of meat a figure of consumption per head equal to what it was pre-war. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, will give me those figures. What are those figures in relation to beef? I believe that the housewife is exercising a choice away from beef and towards pork and mutton and lamb.
That, combined with increased supplies of beef from home and abroad, has had the effect of reducing the demand for beef on the market. From the Digest of Statistics we find that the average consumption of pork per month was 20,000 tons in 1954, and that by 1955 it had gone up to 31,000 tons. It looks as though the monthly average of pork consumption in 1956 has been roughly in the same proportion.
So my second reason is that the housewife is deliberately exercising a choice ; whereas when we de-rationed meat there was first a rush on beef and little chilled beef was imported and there was an increase in the price of beef in the home market, now there has been a gradual shifting in demand, which, with increased supplies from home and abroad and increased consumption of pork and mutton has caused a turning away from beef. This may well be because the butchers have not reduced their prices in the shops to the same extent as the farmers have had to suffer reductions in their market returns. I do not believe that for these two things, the Argentine beef or the housewives' choice, the Government are to blame, or were to blame when they worked out this scheme earlier.
So I approve this Order. I make no complaint that the Government have now altered the scheme so that the payment will work out roughly at an average over the year of about 151s., which was the original price agreed at the Price Review. I think that the Government have shown courage. When most people were prepared to accept the position and wait to get their money back, which might have involved a subsidy of 55s. a cwt. by, maybe, next May, they have taken the difficult choice of going back over all individual payments from 25th March this year and paying a supplementary payment on a seasonal basis to try to make it up to about 151s.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill), I regret that the announcement was not made earlier. I think it might have been, because by July it was obvious, I think, that the scheme was not going to work out and that a big recoupment would be needed. Now we know that it amounts to about £11 million. If the Government had made the Order in July it would have


had some effect on the store cattle position.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave an Answer on Thursday of last week in which he said that the estimates for cattle, sheep and pigs as revised on 5th July, would total £63·4 million and that, of these, that for cattle would be £11·9 million ; sheep £10·2 million ; pigs, £41·3 million. Those estimates will have to be revised. I would ask my hon. Friend to have a shot at revising them.
Of course, we can never in market conditions get an accurate figure. We never can get complete recoupment to the farming industry. However, let us have a shot. May I make a shot? I suggest that for cattle, up to the end of the farming year, the figure will be nearer to £22 million than £11·9 million. At the same time, the pig market has been kept up so well that we may easily achieve a figure of subsidy not of £41 million, but of only £31 million, the same as the out-turn for last year.
Therefore, from the taxpayers' point of view I do not believe that this extra turn of £11 million will be serious at all, and there is even a chance that the original total estimate of £63 million will not be exceeded, because though there will be more on cattle, there may be a little less on sheep and less on pigs.
For all these reasons, I approve the Order. I wish it had been made earlier. None the less, the Government are to be congratulated on their courage in making it, and on putting the matter right, so that confidence, which has never been lost by the farming industry in this Government, may not be lost in the future.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: First, I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having the courage to realise that the system under which this deficiency payment was being made was wrong and having the courage to alter it, but I am sorry that he and the National Farmers' Unions are still maintaining this idea of a rolling average even though for only one month.

Mr. Amory: It will not be a rolling average. It will be based on four weekly periods instead of 52.

Mr. Baldwin: I should not have said "rolling" average. I should have said

"average". It will be made on an average of what beef made a month previously.

Mr. Amory: It will be based on an estimate of what beef will produce for the current four-weekly period.

Mr. Baldwin: As far as I can see, we shall be very nearly in as big a muddle in future as we are in at present. I am not accepting the blame is entirely on the Government in this muddle about which the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke. The people to be blamed are those who negotiated the Price Review—the Ministry and the farmers' representatives.
The rolling average has been in existence for two years and it must have been apparent when these negotiations were taking place that a rolling average designed to keep up a guaranteed price of £7 11s. was bound to suffer for the reason that in the winter of 1955 feeders were making £9 to £10 a cwt. and if those prices were taken into the rolling average of 52 weeks it would be impossible to pay a rolling average of £7 11s.
I do not see why we should not operate a system in respect of fatstock which would be exactly the same as that operating in the case of wheat. I have spoken to a great many farmers in the last few months and I have not met a practical farmer who is a beef producer who does not agree that that would be a fairer system. We should then not be basing payment on estimates or on what somebody actually received 12 months previously, but on an average price for a seasonal period. I want to see the Minister fix a seasonal period for fat-stock, of two or three months, and base the deficiency payment on that period, making the payment in arrears and not in advance. We have to wait a long time already for the wheat deficiency payment and we are quite prepared to wait that time for payment on beef. I think that the negotiators should go back to that system which is working so well with wheat and with which no one disagrees.
My right hon. Friend said that the present system worked satisfactorily in the case of pigs and sheep. It has done so in some places, but what happens? In the spring when we were bringing in fat lambs they were making up to 4s. a 1b. That price is taken into the rolling


average and it means that somebody in the autumn is selling his sheep below the price he expected, and he does not have the amount made up because somebody was selling in the spring at 4s.
It is quite true that the price of pigs has been considerably improved for some months, but will that last? If there is a rolling average for pigs and the price is good, more people will come into the job and there will be a glut and prices will be depressed. Those people will then go out of the business but, because those came in and depressed prices, others who keep up the regular supply of pigs will suffer. That is not right. Those who do the job continuously should reap the benefit.
It has been said that fatstock cannot be dealt with in the same way as wheat, because the wheat is dead and the beef is on the hoof. I do not agree. When I take my wheat off the combine in the autumn I know approximately what my crop will bring when I elect to sell it. If I knew months in advance what I was going to get approximately for my fat-stock I should know when to bring the cattle out as beef. At present, farmers have not the least idea what they will receive in the spring. I want to see stability given to the industry by letting farmers know approximately what they will get months ahead and not have the prices based on what somebody else made 12 months previously.
A great deal has been said about the reason for the depression of prices and about Argentine beef. As a farmer I do not mind two hoots how much beef is brought in from the Argentine if I get the guaranteed price. If a great deal of Argentine beef is brought in and the housewife gets cheap meat, good luck to her—I shall get my guaranteed price. But there will come a time when the taxpayer, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will get tired of the vast sums of money that have been paid out in subsidies to farmers.
If the Government want to meet cases such as that of the Argentine where a country depreciates its currency and floods our market with cheap beef, we should not have a quantative regulation, because if we have that we must have allocation. The Government should put a tariff on beef imports from this country

and from the revenue received from that tariff they should pay a levy subsidy to the farmers.

Mr. Amory: Did my hon. Friend imply that he thought there was a deluge of beef coming in from the Argentine at present? I could not possibly agree with him about that. As I have mentioned, the quantities of beef coming in from the Argentine are extremely moderate.

Mr. Baldwin: I quite agree. I meant a large increase in imported beef compared with the quantity two years ago, which brings another point to my mind.
When the negotiators arranged the guaranteed price last February they must have known that increased imports had been coming in for some time and that those imports would depress our beef prices and, therefore, the rolling average would never compensate farmers to the extent they were entitled to expect. It has been suggested that the system of a rolling average should continue, but when the next February Price Review takes place my right hon. Friend has agreed that the increase in wages shall be taken into account.
If there is one section of our industry that is entitled to expect a rise to meet that actual expenditure it is the meat-producing section. Therefore, what is the good of a guaranteed price and a rolling average being continued after February at £7 11s.? I do not see how the farmer will get his money on the basis of something that happened in 1956. I want to see my right hon. Friend chop this system straight off and start a completely fresh system, so that if he agrees to give the farmer £7 or £8 the farmer will start to receive it straight away after the next Review.

Mr. Amory: That is precisely what I tried to explain earlier that we are proposing to do.

Mr. Baldwin: Well, I must read the speech, because I gathered that if the new price comes in at, say, £8 per cwt., the deficiency payment will be based on an estimate of what the price was a month before. Do I take it that there is no reference back?

Mr. Amory: indicated assent.

Mr. Baldwin: Well, I am glad, but I want to see it in black and white. We


get a standard average price of £7 11s. at present. I want to see that broken down so that it starts with a low guaranteed price for grass-fed beef, rising gradually to a higher price in the spring when the high-cost beef is brought in.
That would reward those who go in for winter beef, it would level our supplies of beef to the market and it would reduce the demand on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If, however, there is to be a standard price running throughout the year it must mean that those of us who have been producing winter beef will simply put our land under grass and will bring the animals out as summer beef, knowing that we shall be given a certain figure. That would mean colossal sums of money for the Chancellor to find, so I hope that whatever is done it will be done in such a way that the winter production of beef is maintained.
My hon. Friend suggested that we ought to produce beef off the grass where we can do it cheaply and then put it into cold store. Heaven forbid that we should ever put our English fresh beef into cold store. Let those who bring in frozen or chilled beef continue to do so, but do not let us go to the expense of turning our fresh beef into chilled or frozen beef, because that would involve great expense with no benefit.
It has also been suggested that we should regulate the import of beef from the Argentine. I asked several of my farmer friends this question : "Do you think that we should stop the import of Argentine beef in the autumn, when we produce our cheap beef?" They replied, "Yes." I said, "Put yourselves in the position of the owner of ships trading between the Argentine and Britain. Are we to say to them that they should put their ships into mothball and sack their crews until we tell them we want to use the ships again?" That is not practicable, because if the owners of such ships cannot maintain a steady trade throughout the year they will go out of business. So it is not possible to regulate the import of Argentine beef any more than tariff protection is possible.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley said that beef prices had not been reduced in the shops. I hear that frequently. I am not here to defend the butcher, but I must point out that

when he buys a first-class bullock he does not buy all sirloin. He has to get rid of forequarters and brisket. The housewife, who a few years ago was more or less forced to buy those cuts, now has the choice of buying selected chilled Argentine hindquarters. Obviously, she would prefer hindquarters to forequarters and brisket. The result is that the butcher has to sell his best cuts of beef at a very high price in order to average out the price of his lower cuts.
My reply to critics who have put that point to me is this, "You have organisations which take cattle from the farmer to the butcher. I suggest that instead of remaining, as middle-men they should start some butchers' shops to see what they can do in the retail trade, instead of being one extra link in the chain of distribution." That is the test of whether the cattle are being marketed properly—take them straight from the producer to the retail shops. It is no use talking airily about it, we must be practical.
I hope that when I read the speech of my right hon. Friend that I shall not find it unnecessarily complicated. I hope, also, that the Minister will realise that if we have a seasonal average, and if during the period in question the average price for markets is ascertained, as is done in the case of wheat, and at the end of the period a deficiency payment is given to all the beef salesmen in that period, the effect will be as follows.
The man who produces the best beef and is a good salesman will pick up the same amount of deficiency payment as the inefficient producer and, therefore, good production will be rewarded. We see this work well in the case of wheat. If a farmer grows the best quality wheat and sells it at a pound or two more than those who produce a lower quality, he gets the same amount of deficiency payment as a man who sells his wheat at £2 or £3 less than he does.
Finally, a word about the individual guaranteed price. Many people do not realise what that was. Nothing pleased me more than when I learned that the Minister intended to abolish it. I say that because the individual guaranteed price rewarded the inefficient producer and the man who did not know how to sell his produce. I do not want to see the Welfare State extended into agriculture. I do not want inefficient producers to be carried on the backs of the efficient.


With the individual guaranteed price there was no incentive to make the beasts better in order to obtain a higher price, because the inefficient producers knew that when they put their cattle on the market they would find the price brought to near the level of that of the best producer. Therefore, from the point of view both of the farmer and the taxpayer, I am glad that we have abolished the individual guaranteed price and I hope that it will never be reintroduced.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I cannot express adequately the pleasure I have derived in listening to the debate. The Minister made an excellent speech, but his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill) said that it seemed to him to be that of a repentant sinner. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) said that there was something wrong with the entire system, not merely with the price regulations, and suggested that a committee should be appointed to investigate the slaughtering, marketing and retailing of cattle in an attempt to discover whether our existing system is efficient or whether something more efficient could not be devised.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) would like to return to the system which was instituted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) after the war. Under that system there was a guaranteed price according to the quality and according to the time of the year. So, after all these years of Conservative Government, the most Conservative Member on the benches opposite would welcome a return of all that my right hon. Friend did. The hon. Gentleman wants a system of guaranteed prices and his friends want something different from what they have had during the past six months. Not one Conservative hon. Member who has spoken has expressed a word of confidence in the forecast which the Minister has made about his policy for next year and future years.
Indeed, hon. Members opposite feel, as most people in the country do, that they have had enough of Tory Government and that this so-called freedom will wreck British agriculture. That was our experience before the war. Hon. Members opposite want producers to have security

in producing the greatest quantity of the highest quality beef that we can achieve in this country. There was security under the former system, although I agree that the system was not complete.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West that the time has come for us so to organise our system of meat production and distribution so that it will be efficient and satisfy the British public and so that our home-produced beef will compete in quality and taste with meat from any part of the globe.
The Minister has tried to cover up the extent of his responsibility for the breakdown in the present system of guaranteed prices. The Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1956, stated in paragraph 21:
The Government have decided to discontinue the individual guarantees for all classes of fatstock which were a feature of the guarantee scheme introduced in 1954 after the end of control. These were intended to provide individual producers with a safeguard against any serious imperfections in the auction markets when private trading was restored.
The paragraph also stated :
In fact the auction markets are now working reasonably well and the stage has been reached when the risks which these arrangements were intended to meet no longer justify the elaborate machinery involved.
That was the Government's belief at the time.
The new scheme was forced upon the agricultural industry against the advice of the National Farmers' Union. I am assured that at all times in the negotiations the representatives of the National Farmers' Union told the Minister that in no circumstances would they accept any responsibility for doing away with the system of individual guarantees and that if the Minister did it he would repent, as he has done today, and the system would collapse. Consequently, the Minister must accept full responsibility and not try to say, as he has done today, that he is negotiating with the National Farmers' Union about future prices and trying to involve them in responsibility for what he forced upon them at the beginning of the year. It ought to be made plain to the House and the country that the Minister forced the scheme upon the N.F.U., that the N.F.U. tried to resist it, and that at no time did the N.F.U. agree with the Minister's amendment in the February Review.

Mr. Amory: I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I accept full responsibility for the method which has been followed. After the Price Review the N.F.U.s made it clear that they were not in favour of the abolition of the individual guarantee but even if the individual guarantee had been continued it would have made no impact upon fulfilling the standard price for this year. It would not have solved the problem that we are solving in this way at the moment.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member for Norfolk South-West (Mr. Dye) mentioned that the individual guaranteed price was introduced to protect vendors from butchers' rings in the markets. That is true. Now that there is the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation is it not up to the man who is afraid of the ring to go to the Corporation?

Mr. Dye: As I understand it, the prices which the Fatstock Marketing Corporation can offer are based upon the current market prices. If there is anything wrong, it is the marketing system.

Mr. T. Williams: And the limitation on slaughterhouses.

Mr. Dye: What the hon. Member for Leominster will not face is that any system of deficiency payments is based upon low market prices. It has been apparent from the operation of the scheme during the past six months that there are not only abnormally low market prices but very big variations in prices from week to week and between different parts of the country. Farmers from any part of the country taking cattle of equal quality to market in the same week may receive widely varying prices. Also, because the deficiency payments system is based upon an average, those who obtain high prices will receive the same deficiency payment as those with low prices. What is fundamentally and lamentably wrong is to try to base a system of marketing and production upon the instability of auction marketing.
I have here the report in last week's Farmer and Stock-Breeder based on the official figures, which reads:
Fat Cattle Prices for fat cattle continued to drop last week. On average, lightweights fell by around 5s. per cwt. but heavyweights showed a much steeper decline.

Although the general trend on Monday was downwards, several markets reported a more cheerful tone on that day. Increases of 1s. or 2s. per cwt. occurred at Abergele, Hereford and Lancaster, and 9s. at Penrith. At Bury St. Edmunds there was an exceptional leap upwards of 23s. for lightweights.
For the rest of the week there were very few markets which showed higher rates than of late. Carmarthen and Llangefni were two of the exceptions, the former with an increase of 4s. and the latter of 1s.
Examples of the way prices were going towards the end of the week can be taken from the Thursday and Friday markets. At Belford, Fakenham and Llangefni lightweights were 6s. per cwt. down, heavyweights from 5s. to 11s. At Banbury lightweights fetched 7s. per cwt. less and heavyweights 14s.
That kind of market report has been appearing in this publication for weeks. Farmers are expected to produce decent cattle in the face of such great variations in price as those, the price sometimes going up by as much as 23s. per live cwt. in one week in one market and collapsing elsewhere. The whole thing is chaos and disorder. How can we expect to have security for the production of beef in such chaotic marketing conditions, and especially when we also have ineffective and inefficient slaughtering conditions and a mass of small butchers' shops supplying the public?
What the Government are not trying to find out and remedy is why there has been this big fall in the market price of beef. It is quite clear that the present retail prices of beef are the same as those ruling over a year ago when prices on the market were very high. The excuse one often hears for that is, "Oh, well, if the price of beef is low, it is probable that the price of mutton or lamb is high. What they lose on one they gain on the other." But at the present time, the prices of all classes of fat stock have been falling for weeks, and still we have high retail prices.
If it is right that the prices fixed for fat cattle should be based on the cost of production over a period of years, and if the Government come in with a guaranteed deficiency payment which is decided on the market prices, why should not there be a system of deciding what is a fair margin for the middleman to receive between the producer and the consumer, because it is they who buy the fat cattle who determine how much the deficiency payment shall be? It is not the Government who determine it, it is those who operate on the market.
If they are making much greater profits now, why should not the Government turn round and say, "Because of the low market prices, we are having to pay a bigger deficiency payment. You are the fellows who are getting the value out of it." Why not place a levy on the butchers, wholesalers and retailers to make up this £10 million, £11 million or £12 million that is now required? Surely, if we are to get stability into marketing, there must be response on both sides, both by those who sell and those who buy.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is not the increased amount of Argentine beef coming into the country that is causing the low market prices at present—

Mr. Amory: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dye: Oh, yes, the right hon. Gentleman said quite clearly that there is not an excessive amount of Argentine beef coming in at the present time, and he said that in answer to an hon. Friend of his who indicated that he thought that it was the import of Argentine beef ; so I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's reply meant that he felt that there was no excessive amount of Argentine beef coming in and that import was not causing the present low market prices for home-produced beef.

Mr. Amory: The two things are entirely different. I said earlier in my speech that the increased supply of Argentine meat was one of the contributory factors to lower prices, but at the same time I said that the present total supplies of beef, including the supplies from the Argentine, were certainly not excessive. That can easily happen. That is the position at present, not an excessive total supply but a lower market price.

Mr. Dye: What the right hon. Gentleman will not face up to is why the price of home-produced beef is low when the retail price is high and steady. That is the crux of the whole problem. That is what we ought to be trying to solve and not calling on the taxpayer to find another £10 million, £11 million or £12 million. We ought to be able to get at the cause of the present low market prices, which the right hon. Gentleman did not expect. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he never expected the present market prices to fall so low.
Is the position now that the Ministry does not know what is happening from one week to the next? Only last week, in answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), the right hon. Gentleman indicated that for the weeks in October he expected the deficiency payment to total 28s. per live cwt., but in the present issue of the Farmer and Stock-Breeder, which came out today, it is now clear that for those same weeks the deficiency payment would be 29s. 6d., so the Minister did not know last week what he would have given under the old system without the Order today by way of deficiency payments. He cannot follow the market from one week to the next and so decide what the deficiency payment is.
Surely, we have here the real crux of the problem. We have something else. Reference has been made to the import of Argentine beef, and we are reliably informed that the shipping companies operating between this country and South America are building bigger and faster ships so as to bring more Argentine beef at a lower cost to this country. At the same time, the Government are preventing the butchers, municipalities, or the Ministry from spending any money on improving slaughtering facilities for home stock. The whole thing is held up because we require modern facilities for the handling of the stock after it leaves the farms, which the Government say they will not allow to go forward at the present time.

Mr. Amory: The Government said no such thing.

Mr. Dye: The Government are not providing any facilities for improving or building new slaughterhouses in this country. They are allowing certain butchers on the basis of their present high profits to carry on improvements to their slaughterhouses, but they are not providing for large-scale improvement or building of slaughterhouses at present, whereas the shipping companies are going ahead with their schemes.

Mr. Amory: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put forward an application here and now to build a new slaughterhouse, I will give it great consideration.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman


aware of the lack of success which we have had in Sunderland where we have a very good case for a slaughterhouse?

Mr. Dye: I personally do not want to build a slaughterhouse, but I have a wholesale butcher in my constituency who has deposited plans with the local authority. They have gone to the Ministry, and there they have been, as the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary knows, for over a year, and he cannot get permission to go forward. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that, and the Minister ought to know it, but he does not. The Minister does not know what is going on in the country or in his own Ministry, and because of that he makes these statements in the House from time to time for which he has to repent. But he does not repent, as most sinners do, in sackcloth and ashes, but with smiles and charms. Surely we ought to expect that we can make progress in the handling of our livestock both in marketing and slaughtering if great improvements are being made for the import of beef into this country.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot make the butchers and others who handle the stock disgorge their big profits and make them available to meet the requirement of the larger deficiency payment, surely he should listen to his hon. Friends as well as hon. Members on this side of the House. He ought to listen to the plea for an inquiry into the margins allowable to the butchers and others handling the fatstock. He should have a system of margins based upon their actual costs if we are to have a system of guaranteed prices to the farmers also based on their ascertained costs. It seems that is only reasonable.
There has been a collapse in the Government's policy. Inside six months they have had to come to this House and say, "We have made a mistake." Their own supporters say they should have done it much earlier, but they did not, and here they are now, at the end of October, saying that their system has collapsed ; that they must have more money to meet the deficiency payment. Surely we shall have an inquiry into the whole system of marketing. Surely, now that the Minister thinks The butchers and others and the municipalities can make improvements and build new slaughterhouses, he

will agree that a period should be given for this work, so that we may have on the one hand an expanding and improving livestock industry and, on the other, a proper and efficient system of processing, slaughtering and the rest. Then the consumers may obtain a more satisfactory supply, and we can all rest assured that no one is reaping huge profits at the expense of the taxpayers.
That is the fault about the present system of deficiency payments. The people who operate the markets can determine how much the Government will pay in subsidy to them and to others, and there is no check. Surely there should be a check, and this has revealed the need for it. Surely the Minister will tell us that, having listened to the speeches of his hon. Friends. They are becoming socialistic in their approach to this problem and are now not merely discontented but can see that this old idea that freedom works in the modern world has been proved completely false, and that we must have something different which must be both fair to the producer and to the consumer.

7.35 p.m.

Sir Harold Roper: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument. I understand that the Joint Under-Secretary will be speaking shortly to deal with the points which he raised.
I wish to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend for introducing this Order. It has taken the sting out of the complaints and the dissatisfaction expressed by those farmers whom I represent and I feel confident that the new scheme now in embryo will, when it appears, give them cause for still further satisfaction.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the shortfall below the standard price would eventually be made good, but, he went on to say, in a period beyond the year covered by the rolling average. That will be true of the country as a whole, but my point is that it is not true of remoter places like Cornwall and parts of Scotland. Inevitably, it cannot be true, unless the market price over the period is substantially more than the standard price. In Cornwall, our market prices regularly run around 4s. and 5s. a live cwt. below the national average.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in working out this new scheme, he can introduce some form of regional adjustment to help us to overcome that problem. In correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary I have been told that one of the difficulties is that our store cattle are purchased in our markets and transported elsewhere for finishing. That may be a point, but I suggest that it is not the decisive point. Even in this present scheme there has been a difficulty about store cattle. The fact that the retrospective application of this scheme leaves sales of store cattle out of account is not considered a decisive argument against the scheme.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the scheme again and consider whether something can be done to rectify that matter which affects people in the remote areas. I congratulate the Minister on this scheme, but I ask him to look again at that matter.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I think that I should divulge an interest. I try to produce fatslock—Aberdeen Angus—and sell them. I therefore have an interest in the price which they and other fatstock may realise. We have had a very bad time. We have experienced a summer in which our cattle has been fetching about £12 to £15 per head less than they did 12 months ago in spite of the incidence of increased costs.
I have always held the view that there is only one satisfactory way of guaranteeing a price to the producer of fatstock and that is to make sure that the price of the individual beast, after it has been sold, is made up to the level of the guarantee agreed at the annual review of prices; in other words, an individual price guarantee. I do not mean the kind we had under the old system. I do not think that that worked properly.
There are great disadvantages about an individual price guarantee, the principle of which I suppose is that it does remove, or it is alleged that it removes, the incentive to individual producers to do that little bit extra to go in for quality production. I do not believe that this is necessarily true, if we have the kind of individual price guarantee which I should like to see, which would be tied

to grade, and where we would have a rigid inspection to ensure that no one qualified for that grade and the guaranteed price accompanying it unless his cattle were up to the required standard.
I have reluctantly to face the fact that that would involve an enormous inspectorate throughout the country in order to achieve uniformity and fairness in grading, and grading which was judged to be fair by the farmers themselves. I must decide regretfully, as I think the Government have decided—certainly the National Farmers' Unions have so decided—not to press any longer for that kind of individual price guarantee. Therefore, I welcome the proposals which have been made.
My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) and Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) spoke about tariffs as if there were no tariff on imported beef, whereas there has been such a tariff for twenty years—ever since the Ottawa Conference before the war—although not a very large one. On chilled beef it has been ¾d. per lb. and on frozen beef two-thirds of a penny and on beef offal 20 per cent. ad valorem. Before the the war, chilled beef sold for about a third of the price at which it sells now. Therefore, it would be legitimate and reasonable to press, if we were free in these matters, for an increase in the tariff on imported beef to that extent and still remain in the same relative position as before the war.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) made a point about Argentine beef. I do not think that there is an early prospect of the Argentine chilled beef supply coming anywhere near the prewar level, even if the cattle were available for export. Reports are that the Argentine people eat much more beef themselves and have not such an exportable surplus as hitherto. Even if there were the port facilities in this country and in the Argentine, there will not be sufficient refrigerator space to bring more than 25,000 tons a month over here, regularly, for some time.
I greatly welcome the Government's initiative in introducing the new scheme. They have shown themselves aware of the difficulties of the fatstock producer during the recent disastrous summer, and ready


to correct it. I welcome the decision to make a retrospective payment and the Government's intention to introduce a new scheme for the fatstock year beginning at the end of March, 1957. I welcome the fact that the Government have been able to carry the National Farmers' Unions with them, for these are, after all, the accredited representatives of farmers and of fatstock producers in principle and in detail.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I have only one minute at my disposal before the Minister is to reply to the debate, but it is sufficient to enable me to say how much I welcome the scheme and congratulate the Minister on taking the initiative. I was glad to note by his remarks that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gives full credit to the Minister also, and that we shall not hear that the scheme is the result of pressure groups.
The scheme is the result of action by the Minister in the spirit of what he undoubtedly wished in the way of a guaranteed price. He desired that, by virtue of the rolling average, a certain sum of money should definitely be distributed to the farmer, but when he saw that it would not happen within a sufficiently short time my right hon. Friend introduced this scheme, which carries out the spirit and the intention of the Price Review decision last February. I hope that farmers will recognise that when the Minister sees at any time that the spirit of his intention is not being brought about he introduces legislation to implement the spirit of his intention, and that therefore, farmers should trust him.

7.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I think the House will agree that we have had a good-tempered debate, as we might well have when the Government are providing an additional £11 million for the industry concerned. The debate has even given pleasure to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), although I understand that the reason for his pleasure is something of a critical nature that might have been said at various times by Government supporters—

Mr. Dye: And constructive.

Mr. Macpherson: —Yes, and constructive indeed, because we who sit on these benches are always constructive.
My right hon. Friend has explained why the Government decided to make these payments over and above the existing scheme. They will average about 11s. per live cwt. over the year and will range from 23s. per cwt. in the first period of four weeks to 3s. per cwt. in the last period. I do not think that the reasons given by my right hon. Friend have been wholly understood. Guarantee payments were very low in the early part of the livestock year, when prices were still falling from their high level of the preceding summer. Indeed, there would have been no payment at all in the first three-month period had the level of the guarantee not been raised at the last Annual Price Review. That was a vindication of my right hon. Friend's satisfaction last April that the determinations of the Annual Price Review were right and fair, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) recalled.
The other point is that it now seems that under the present scheme the total value of guarantee payments will not be enough this year to bring the average total return up to the level of the guarantee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) has just reminded us. That does not mean that the increase in guarantee at the last Annual Price Review was an illusion, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley suggested ; in the long run, the guarantee would be attained. I would remind the House that the guarantee does not mean that on any particular transaction, or even on the average in a particular month or a longer period, the guaranteed price will be realised. The shortfall would be made up on the average but not, I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper), on each individual transaction.
The Government expected, and the farming community was justified in expecting, that within the period of the livestock year the total price realised by the farmer as a selling price, plus the guarantee payment, would correspond with the guaranteed price. This year that does not look like happening. In each of the last two years the guaranteed price for beef has been exceeded. But that does


not mean that because it looked as if this was not going to happen this year the scheme had broken down. The right hon. Member for Don Valley used very hard words when he talked about chicanery and "phoney" figures. He said that the Government never expected to have to pay, but that is entirely at variance with the fact that in the long run the Government were bound to make up the guaranteed price.

Mr. T. Williams: Why did the Government delay until September or October before making up their mind to produce the supplementary scheme?

Mr. Macpherson: For the good reason that we had to watch the course of prices to see what was to happen. In time we might have come very much more closely to the guaranteed price. The Government were determined to encourage beef production and intended the guaranteed price to be realised, and so my right hon. Friend announced last July that the guaranteed price would be kept at not less than its present level of 151s. That would have ensured that it would have been obtained. That undertaking still stands.
In short, the present scheme gives the guaranteed price but not necessarily within any one fatstock year. Because of the time-lag, there is a tendency to lose confidence temporarily in the scheme, although this would be corrected in time. We recognise this imperfection in the scheme and we are setting out to improve the scheme while retaining its virtues.
The Government never claimed that the scheme was perfect. Indeed. I remind the House that in the White Paper on Decontrol of Food and Marketing of Agricultural Produce, issued in November, 1953, these words appeared :
No scheme introduced at this time can be regarded as permanent. The present plan has been devised to meet the immediate situation, and is open to modification in the light of experience.
We have had the experience of unexpectedly high prices in the first three four-week periods of 1955–56 the total average return was never below 170s. 6d. at a time when the guaranteed price was 138s. 8d., and in seven out of the thirteen periods it was above the guaranteed price. This year, on the other

hand, we have had the experience of falling prices when the decline has not been completely offset by the rise in guarantee payments. In fact, stabilising adjustment payments have been made in the last three four-weekly periods. It is this steady fall which has demonstrated the weakness in the 52-week rolling average system, namely, that it adjusts the rate of guarantee payment too slowly to enable the total return to approximate to the guaranteed price.
It is not for me tonight to discuss the framework of the new scheme which we shall introduce next March, but what is needed is to replace the present fatstock scheme by a method of payment which is more quickly responsive to changes in market conditions. We have reached agreement with the National Farmers' Unions—and hon. Members have been good enough to remark on this point—on the main features of a new scheme, although it cannot be finally completed until the start of the next annual review.
I have noted what hon. Members have said about the requirements of the new scheme. My right hon. Friend has outlined the main requisites. Suffice it to say that we are thinking in terms of a narrower band of stabilising adjustment limits with a seasonal scale in the case of cattle and sheep—some of my hon. Friends were anxious to have that—and a rate of guarantee payment based on four weeks instead of the average of the past 52 weeks.
What we have to do tonight is to seek the approval of the House of the Order which enables my right hon. Friends to make additional payments over and above those which are available to producers under the present fatstock scheme. The House will note that the power to make such payments is limited to payments in respect of cattle and is confined to the present year. My right hon. Friend has said that the present scheme has worked well for sheep and pigs, and there is no occasion to change it here.
The manner in which the power is to be exercised is set out in the written reply to the Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) last Thursday and the total cost to the Treasury will be approximately £11 million. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented in due course. That is the answer to my hon. and gallant.


Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan)—or, rather, the only answer which I can give him at the present time. I am unable to confirm or deny the figures which he suggested of the size of the Exchequer payments in relation to the fatstock scheme.
I think the House would like to hear a word about the time of payment. The supplementary payments for the first eight periods will start almost at once and it is hoped that they will be completed by the end of the livestock year—that is to say, 24th March, 1957. As hon. Members have pointed out, this is a complicated business involving going right over all the previous transactions. There may be a slight difficulty in the early stages in Scotland, but we hope to complete the payments by the end of the livestock year. For the last five periods of this livestock year—that is to say, from 4th November to 24th March—supplementary payments will be included in the guarantee payment plus any stabilising adjustment payment made weekly.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North about how the payments will affect breeders of cattle and those who raise store cattle. The additional payments will not benefit them directly. The retrospective payments cannot benefit them directly except in as far as they tend to stimulate confidence, but the additional payments from now on should benefit them indirectly in that if the farmer who finishes cattle for slaughter knows that he will get this additional payment, he is likely to be disposed to pay more for stores than he would otherwise have done.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus asked a question about the consumption of meat per head of the population and suggested that there had been a swing away from the consumption of beef in relation to other forms of meat. There is something in what he said. The consumption of beef for 1955 has been roughly held as compared with that of 1950, whereas the consumption of all fresh and frozen meat rose in that period from 76·1 lb. per head of the population to 89 lb. per head of the population. We think that in this year the consumption of beef is likely to be back, roughly, to its pre-war rate of about 55 lb. per head of the population.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the House will listen to the hon. Member.

Mr. Macpherson: As I was saying, we think that the consumption of beef per head of the population is likely to return to roughly the pre-war level of 55 lbs. as against last year's level of 46·2 1bs.
My hon. and gallant Friend also asked a question about imports from the Argentine. As my right hon. Friend said, it has never been maintained that imports from the Argentine have not affected prices. Of course they have. The increase in imports from the Argentine has been pretty considerable. Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that even now the Argentine is providing us with only about 20 per cent. of our total supplies of beef compared with about 30 per cent. before the war. Without the supplies which we are now getting from the Argentine, the average level of beef consumption in this country would still not have returned to its pre-war level, notwithstanding the increase of about 20 per cent. which has taken place since then in home production.
Other points have been raised and, with permission, I will write to my hon. Friends and to hon. Members opposite who have raised them, but I think I have dealt with the main points which have been raised. I would conclude by saying that the Government's willingness to make these additional payments and to modify the present scheme demonstrates, first of all, their readiness to learn by experience, in marked contrast to the party opposite, and, secondly, their intention to treat farmers fairly. There has been some doubt expressed about that, but this Order indicates that intention and that determination. Lastly, the Government's firm intention to carry out the policy declared in the last White Paper on the Annual Price Review ; namely, the further encouragement of production of fat cattle, and, with that object in view, to retain a high level of guarantee as a necessary part of their long-term policy for beef production.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.

EGYPT AND ISRAEL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

8.0 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): Sir, as we undertook earlier, we now resume this important and grave discussion. I have no more detailed information to give the House as yet, but it may be that some may come through during the course of the debate, in which case my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary—who will wind up the discussion ; I thought that that would be the best way to handle the situation—would give the House the very latest information towards the end of the debate.
If the House will allow me, I should like to address myself briefly to one or two points raised during the earlier discussion this afternoon. I should like to begin by dealing with an important point which the Leader of the Opposition himself put forward—that is, about the present situation under the Tripartite Declaration. I think that that Declaration has to be carefully examined and understood, because I am not sure that it is understood altogether, so far as it concerns Egypt—and I am dealing with Egypt at the moment.
Our action under the Tripartite Declaration in relation to Egypt must, surely, be governed by the fact that Egypt has taken as her stand that she will not accept the implications of the Tripartite Declaration. The Egyptian Press has continuously, as the House knows, denounced the Declaration—and everyone knows that the Press of Egypt does not exactly say things unless someone asks it to say them. The Egyptian Foreign Minister also made it clear to us that the Tripartite Declaration is what he called a unilateral declaration, giving rise, he said, to no contractual obligations, and giving the three Powers no rights to intervene.
I think that that has to be borne in mind when considering what, if any, are our obligations in relation to Egypt now under the Tripartite Declaration. Indeed, there is more to it even than that, because I should have informed the House—I should have recollected before, because I

had something to do with those negotiations—that when we were negotiating for the agreement on the Canal base in 1954, Egypt insisted on an agreed interpretation of the Treaty. Hon. Members will find that at the back of the White Paper which was published at the time the Treaty was issued.
In that agreed interpretation, Egypt insisted specifically on making it clear that we would not have the right to reactivate the base in the event of an attack on Egypt, or on any other Arab State, by Israel. The only implication of that must surely be that Egypt did not want the three-Power Declaration to apply to her in respect of a conflict with Israel. I do not know what other interpretation one can place both on her Press and on what her Foreign Minister said, and on what she asked for at the time when the Treaty was signed, in 1954. I think that all those things must be borne in mind ; that her position under the Tripartite Declaration is not the same as that of other countries, notably Israel.
We have also to bear in mind, when considering all this, that since 1951 Egypt is in breach of a Security Council Resolution, to which reference has been made several times this afternoon. We have to bear in mind the continued threats, and they cannot be called less, by Egyptian leaders against Israel, the acquisition of large quantities of offensive arms, and last—and, perhaps, in some ways, psychologically, at least, most important of all—the recent agreement, arrangement, perhaps, I should call it, which results in the Egyptian chief of the general staff, I think he is called, being the joint commander, as it were, or the co-ordinator of plans and commands for Egypt, for Syria and for Jordan. That, Sir, I, personally, thought a very grave development.
I know that we have been criticised in this House for continuing to make the payment to Jordan, as we have been doing all this time. It is perfectly reasonable to utter that criticism. On the other hand, we continued this payment because we wished to do what we could to assist Jordan to lead an independent national life, and to avoid, if I may say so bluntly, this kind of situation, in this form, arising.
Those are all factors that we cannot ignore. I state them now only because,


when people talk about who is the aggressor in this very difficult business, so far as we know it at the present time, it is fair and just that all these factors should be taken into account—all of them—and not just to say, as it is said, that because one Government has taken one particular action all the rest has to be swept away. That is how the Government feel on this topic.
I want now to deal, if I may, with one or two other points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) and one or two other hon. Members asked whether British troops, and other troops, will be withdrawn once the present hostilities cease. Of course that will be so ; certainly. It is our intention that they shall be withdrawn as soon as possible. The last thing that we want is an enduring commitment of that kind—the last thing.
I have emphasised that we intend their presence at key points to be merely temporary. I have also explained that the purpose of that intervention is to seek to separate the combatants, to remove the risk to free passage through the Canal, and to reduce the risk, if we can, to those voyaging through the Canal.
Naturally, we hope that compliance by both sides with our appeal will enable those two objects to be secured rapidly, and then there would clearly be no need for anything more than token forces to make sure that what was accepted by both sides was, in fact, carried out, and they would, of course, be withdrawn the moment an agreement, a settlement, was arrived at. I hope that that has met some of the points which were raised.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—and other hon. Members, I think—put to me a point. It is a completely fair point to put, but it is one which I cannot answer in any satisfactory manner. They asked me what guarantee would be given, or could be given, to Israel, if she complied with our appeal, that she would not again be subjected to continued threats. That is what I was asked. The answer is that I am not in a position to give such a guarantee.
I wish that I were. I devoutly wish that I were, but I am not. On the other hand, the object of what we are now seeking to do is to try to bring about an

immediate cessation of hostilities before the situation grows more dangerous, from every point of view, owing to air activity increasing on both sides ; an immediate cessation of hostilities, which should be to everybody's interests, I think, including Israel's. At any rate, it is on that basis that we have addressed the appeal to both parties. We think that further efforts can then be made to try to find a permanent settlement of this terrible problem which has haunted us for so long—the relations between Israel and the Arab States. That, therefore, is the object which we have in mind.
I admit that the decision which Her Majesty's Government took, together with the French Government, was one which laid heavy responsibilities upon us. We thought that there was a fair and reasonable chance that these proposals might be accepted. With all respect to hon. Gentlemen, I would ask them not to make up their minds. There is a fair and reasonable chance that they might be accepted. If they were, they offer by far the best opportunity of preventing this situation from growing into a far more dangerous one, affecting the whole of the Middle East. Hon. Gentlemen may, if they like, impugn our judgment. I hope that they will not impugn our motives, because that was the decision we took and that was the spirit in which we took it.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I hope that the Prime Minister in asking us not to impugn his motives will also refrain from impugning ours and that we shall conduct this debate, even if there are differences between us, on the understanding that we are both of us in our ways wishing to say and do the right thing for our country.
We did not pursue this matter this afternoon because we felt it would be wiser to have a little time to think over what the Prime Minister said in his grave statement. We did insist on having a debate today because of the latter part of that statement. In the last paragraph or two the Prime Minister told us that the United Kingdom and French Governments had addressed communications to Egypt and Israel in which Egypt and Israel were called upon to stop all warlike action and to withdraw their military forces ten miles from the Canal.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—and I had better read his words :
Further, in order to separate the belligerents and to guarantee freedom of transit through the Canal by the ships of all nations, we have asked the Egyptian Government to agree that Anglo-French forces should move temporarily … into key positions at Port Said, Ismailia and Suez. The Governments of Egypt and Israel have been asked to answer this communication within twelve hours. It has been made clear to them that, if at the expiration of that time one or both have not undertaken to comply with these requirements, British and French forces will intervene in whatever strength may be necessary to secure compliance.
Those are very grave words indeed. They amount, coupled with what the Prime Minister said in reply to a request from us, to an ultimatum to accept the proposals of the British and French Governments and, failing that, the British and French Governments will impose a solution by force. Therefore, the possibility arises that before this House meets again British troops may be in action in Egypt. We did not feel that we could rise tonight, therefore, without a further discussion taking place.
It is not necessary for me this evening to go into the whole of the background. There will, no doubt, be other opportunities for that. I will only say just this. I recognise, as I think we all do, that Israel has been subject to considerable provocation, that there have been many raids from Jordan and Egypt and lives have been lost, that threats have been made against her, that the latest action of combining the armed forces of Syria and Egypt and Jordan is a threat, that indeed, as we have said many times before, the purchase of arms from Czechoslovakia held out a very real possibility that within a fairly short time the balance would swing heavily on the side of Egypt and the Arab States.
All that is common ground. I am bound to say that, even allowing for all that, I find it very hard to justify on the basis of the United Nations Charter or the Tripartite Declaration the action taken by Israel in entering Egypt and advancing apparently up to 70, 80, or even 100 miles. It may be said, however, that this was only a reprisal raid on a large scale, that the intention was simply to root out the bases from which the terrorist incursions into Israel took place. I do not wish this evening to

attempt to judge that. I think the right place for judging the issue of whether or not there was aggression in terms of the United Nations Charter, and the exact degree of responsibility, is the Security Council of the United Nations.
I said this afternoon that we warmly welcomed the reference of this issue to the Security Council. But I had supposed that that having been so we should have heard from the Prime Minister not of independent action taken by Britain and France, but of the kind of proposals which Great Britain might be making in the Security Council. I had expected that we would be proposing, for instance, that the Israeli troops and forces should be withdrawn again within the Israeli frontiers.
I at once say that I do not think it would have been right for us to content ourselves with that unless we had said at the Security Council something else as well, namely that experience had now shown that it was not reasonable to expect the Israelis simply to return to the status quo ante, that indeed their insecurity was such that a heavy duty devolved immediately upon the United Nations to tackle once again this terribly difficult Arab-Israeli problem.
I think, in fact, that we have got to recognise, whatever the outcome may be, that the situation in which Israel was placed, in which on the one side she was told when it was a question of her ships going through the Canal that Arab States were still in a state of war with her, and on the other that if there was any kind of action of a warlike nature begun by her that was a breach of the peace, was becoming an almost impossible situation. I want to clear all that out of the way because I think it is common ground very largely between us.
Since we met in the afternoon the news has come through that the United States delegate to the United Nations has, in fact, proposed that the Israeli troops should be withdrawn, not ten miles from the Canal but within her own frontiers. One of the questions I want the Foreign Secretary to answer is whether or not that was agreed with the United States or what exactly the divergence with them is in this matter.
The difference between us—I am sorry to say this—lies in the action announced by the Prime Minister at the end of his


statement which I read out at the beginning of my speech. Our first criticism of this is that it was taken independently by Britain and France at the very moment when this dispute was being referred to the Security Council. I cannot see any possible justification for that. Surely the right thing to have done would have been to have waited for the debate in the Security Council which was taking place this afternoon. [Laughter.] When hon. Members laugh at the suggestion that we should await the outcome of a debate in the Security Council, I wonder if they realise what conclusion people who listen to them draw. They draw the conclusion that hon. Members who behave in that way have simply lost faith entirely in the United Nations. I do not associate the Front Bench with this, but I warn hon. Members opposite that if they go on like that, that is the impression they will create in the country.
It is not our business to decide on our own that we should take independent action, even if it be, or appear to be, from our point of view police action. There is nothing in the United Nations Charter which justifies any nation appointing itself as world policeman. The great danger of the situation is that if we can do this so can anybody else. That is my first criticism and, I beg the Prime Minister to believe, a very grave anxiety of ours in this matter.
The second criticism is that I cannot see any legal justification for what it is proposed to do. The Prime Minister this evening gave a number of reasons why he felt the Tripartite Declaration no longer applied. He said that Egypt had denounced it. It is very odd that he should have left it until tonight to come forward with that argument. I should like the Foreign Secretary to tell us when it was that Egypt objected to the Tripartite Declaration. My recollection is that she objected from the very start to the Tripartite Declaration ; and certainly in recent years, throughout the whole period since 1950, first of all our Government and then the present Government have repeatedly pledged themslves to abide by the Tripartite Declaration. It really is not good enough to come along at this last moment and say, "Egypt is against it, and therefore we no longer support it".
The Prime Minister referred too to the Canal Zone evacuation Agreement, and he pointed out, which is perfectly correct, that there is an agreed minute which lays it down that an attack by Israel on one of the Arab States is not justification for the reoccupation of the Canal Zone by British forces. I am not very surprised at Colonel Nasser, or Colonel Neguib, whoever negotiated it, insisted on putting that in, because if that agreed minute had not been included there might have been some legal justification for immediate reoccupation of the Canal Zone in existing circumstances. It is perfectly clear that the Egyptians did not want that at all. They were, I imagine, prepared in negotiations to agree that if there were an attack from Russia from the East, which was no doubt in mind, then the reoccupation could take place, and without previous consultation—if I recollect correctly—if the attack had actually already occurred. I do not think that is a very good argument.
The other arguments are no better. The fact that the Egyptians ignored and disregarded the 1951 Resolution of the United Nations is deplorable. We have repeatedly referred to it. But it has been known for the past five years. That is again no excuse, therefore, for suddenly coming along and saying we will not apply the Tripartite Declaration.
Finally, for the Prime Minister to come and tell us that, after all, the Egyptians have been getting a lot of arms from Czechoslovakia, strikes me as almost funny when I remember the debates earlier this year, and, I think, at the conclusion of last year, in which we were protesting strongly because of the Government's refusal to allow Israel arms. For the Prime Minister now to come and defend this particular action on the ground that the Egyptians were allowed to have those arms and the Israelis were not, seems to me so feeble as an argument that I am surprised that he put it forward.
Our third criticism is that we are not satisfied with the degree of consultation which appears to have taken place either with other countries in the Commonwealth or with the United States of America. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pressed that point this afternoon but did not get any answer. I want to ask again tonight


whether the other members of the Commonwealth were consulted on this, and what was their reaction. I put this seriously because we all know what the reaction of India was in the earlier stages. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who at one time, used to be rather proud, or appeared to be proud of the Commonwealth, had better be careful when they start laughing. If they go on in that way, they will go faster towards breaking it up than anything else they could do.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: You broke it up. You threw it away.

Mr. Gaitskell: We all know the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), and we do not take him terribly seriously.
I would therefore ask. What consultations took place with the Commonwealth, and what was the reaction of the other Commonwealth Governments? I would ask also whether the United States is in agreement with us on this. Is America supporting us? Is she giving us her full backing? If it comes to a vote in the Security Council on our action, if it is taken, can we be sure that the United States will vote with us, or are we doing this off our own bat without bothering whether the United States is going to support us or not?
I must refer to the proposal put forward that each side should withdraw ten miles from the Canal Zone. I do not think anybody will accuse me of lack of sympathy with Israel, but I am bound to say that a proposal which is intended to stop the fighting, and which involves the withdrawal of the Egyptians ten miles further within their own frontier and a withdrawal of the Israelis ten miles from the Canal Zone—which still leaves them at some points 160 miles inside Egypt—is hardly one which, I should have thought, would commend itself on equitable grounds.
The only other excuse which has been put forward—and I press the Prime Minister on this—[HON. MEMBERS : "What would the right hon. Gentleman do?"] What would I do? I have already said that. I would first of all—[HON. MEMBERS : "Answer."] If we go on like this, we shall need a force to separate the two sides in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that we have a very short time for this debate and disorderly interruptions merely prolong speeches.

Mr. Gaitskell: The first thing I would do—and this is what I am going to ask the Prime Minister to do—would be to refrain from using armed force until the Security Council has finished its deliberations.
The only other argument which the Prime Minister has put forward is that it is necessary to do this in order to protect British lives and ships in the Suez Canal. Very well. But suppose the news comes through that the Israeli forces are being withdrawn towards the Israeli frontier, that they are far more than ten miles from the Suez Canal, is it still the intention of the Government, when there is really no danger whatever to British lives and shipping, to carry on with their ultimatum to Egypt and Israel and impose force if the ultimatum is refused?
I ask the Foreign Secretary this question because I understand that in Jerusalem the Israelis have issued a statement saying that in fact this is not intended to be more than an attempt to wipe out the bases from which these raids are taking place and that they do intend to withdraw afterwards. If this is the case, how on earth can the Prime Minister possibly justify intervening when the Israelis are no longer near the Canal at all? He has also to show that there was no other way. In international law, I believe, there is provision, if the local authorities cannot maintain law and order, for a Government stepping in and rescuing their own nationals. But if that piece of international law is so interpreted as to justify armed intervention with an ultimatum of the kind that has been announced this afternoon—I suggest that it can be used in all sorts of circumstances and greatly to our detriment in all parts of the world.
I should have thought that if that was the case the Americans would also be concerned with the safety of their nationals and their shipping. Why have they not taken action of this kind? They have been content to tell their nationals to come home and to warn their shipping. In what has happened so far, I cannot see any possible justification for the use


of force which we have heard about this afternoon.
The Prime Minister has not consulted the Opposition. I would like to place that on record.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Which Opposition?

Mr. Gaitskell: We have had no discussions with the Prime Minister. I do not blame him for that—he has had very little time—but he made no attempt, if he wishes to have a united country on this issue, to find out whether it was possible. I can well understand the desire of, I think, the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who spoke this afternoon, about the desire for unity, but the Opposition cannot be expected to rubber-stamp what the Government does whether they agree with it or not.
Because we have very grave anxieties about the last part of the Prime Minister's statement, I am going to make an appeal to him. I ask him once again, as I asked him this afternoon, if he will defer any action by armed forces by Britain, and, if he can persuade the French, by the French as well, until after the Security Council has completed its deliberation and until we have had a further opportunity of discussing the matter in the House of Commons.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Would the right hon. Gentleman do that?

Mr. Gaitskell: I must tell the Prime Minister that if he is unable to give that undertaking, which is a very reasonable one in view of what is happening in the Security Council today, and on the grounds that we do not think it right that this country should be put in grave danger of being involved in war in these conditions and in these circumstances, I regret to say that we shall have to divide the House.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: We have just heard a dissertation which is neither more nor less than a plea for delay. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition make one case and one case only. It was that nothing should be done until the Security Council had reached a decision.
This proposition is put forward within a matter of days of another resort to the

Security Council which produced no decision at all. It is put forward after some years of resort to the Security Council in many other matters that have produced no decision either. It is put forward in the light of the fact that on the one occasion when the Security Council did reach a decision nobody did anything about it.
This plea for procrastination is put forward when, on the Government's case, there might be some danger to British lives and property. It is put forward alongside the admission, which the Leader of the Opposition himself conceded, that under international law it may well be legitimate to intervene upon the territory of another State to protect one's own nationals. The proposition, in other words, is a series of arguments that do not argue—it is a succession of non sequiturs.
This afternoon, in an atmosphere of some heat which I hope we can now cool down, we heard a number of arguments about peace or war, and in the few minutes only for which I propose to detain the House I should like to allude to some of those points. Many of them were put forward more in the nature of slogans than of arguments. We were told by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was a case of war or peace. I submit that this is a case not of war or peace, but of law and peace.
It has been suggested by the partisans interested in the case either of the Jews or of the Arabs that one or other party may turn down our proposal. And this is urged as an argument for inaction in a day and age that has seen the United Nations ineffective over and over again; it is at such a time that we are invited to be ineffective. The whole object of the arguments advanced by some hon. Gentlemen opposite is that, somehow, we best facilitate peace by doing nothing.
That was certainly not the intention of the United Nations Charter, and there are phrases in the Charter which may well be cited in support of the Government's approach. [HON. MEMBERS : "Cite one."] I have not a copy in my pocket, or I would quote textually ; but there is, for example, the provision that nothing in the Charter interferes with the inherent right of nations to defend themselves. Under international law, as


already admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, that is bound to extend to the protection of the lives and property of one's own citizens.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: What are the Americans doing? They have nationals, too.

Mr. Maitland: It was suggested just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and earlier by other hon. Members opposite, that in some way the Government are at fault for not having sought the support of the Opposition, or, as another phrase has it, "consulted or even informed" the Opposition. The suggestion that I think is implicit in that complaint is that had there been consultation, which really means consultation between the two Front Benches, not between the two parties, then somehow national unity would be secured by a cabal of people on either side of the House. On the contrary, it is quite impossible to express the degree of national unity we all wish merely on the basis of secret and hidden communications through the privacy of the usual channels.
I believe that we shall find in the days to come, perhaps soon, that the public is wholeheartedly relieved that at last there are Governments in Europe—indeed, in the world—who are prepared to take some action to defend an international interest. One or two hon. Members keep shouting the catcall about making war ; but the war is on now. Their cry is out of date. The point is how to put the fire out. What does one do with a fire? Point the fire extinguisher at the moon, apparently.
The Opposition have clamoured for the past several years to have the Tripartite Declaration turned into some kind of guarantee that would protect Israel. Now that the action which such a guarantee might have required seems to threaten the advance of the Israelis, hon. Gentlemen opposite complain.
They say that we should not enter upon Egyptian territory because that would compromise Egyptian sovereignty. But do they condone the Israeli action or do they condemn it? Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that we should only know whether it is aggression

on which the Security Council has decided. Yet they endorsed the action of the United States in intervening in Korea in advance of a Security Council decision.
It is easy to inflame passions in the House and the country by merely appealing to Arab or Jewish sentiment, and there are partisans of both on both sides of the House. We should be wiser to look back over the course of the last several months and to reflect whether a resort to the Security Council has, in fact, borne fruit. We should consider the broad conception of internationalising the very problem which has so blown up in our faces and consider whether the forward course, in terms of a world of contracting sovereignties, is not to take a bold intiative of this kind, bearing in mind that we have an obligation to protect our own subjects, and never forgetting our own basic national interests.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: If I do not begin my observations by replying to the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), I beg him to believe that that is not out of any lack of courtesy but simply because I could not make head or tail of what he was saying. However, I want to follow his example in one respect, and that is to look at the present situation against the background of what has gone before.
The Prime Minister, when he began his statement this afternoon, referred at length and in some detail to the notable increase in tension which has taken place in recent times between Israel and her Arab neighbours. If we want to see the right way of going about matters we must look at the background, and I say quite bluntly to the right hon. Gentleman that when he says that kind of thing he should bear in mind that nobody has done so much over the last year or two to increase the tension in that area and to make both sides less secure than they felt before—nobody has done so much to do those bad things as Her Majesty's Government and the right hon. Gentleman himself.
After all, it is now a good many years since the Arab-Israel war came to an end. For most of that time, although it is true that there was a great deal of border infiltration and trouble, and raids


and threatening speeches—[An HON. MEMBER : "And the state of war."] Yes, and the state of war. I am not trying to make debating points—the fact is that there was no very great danger of war. Nobody really thought that war was imminent.
It is only in the last year or two that this tension has increased to a very great extent, and one needs to see what were the causes of it. High among those causes, I believe, is the speech which the Prime Minister made at the Guildhall a few months ago. Until that speech was made it was possible for moderate people in the Middle East, and certainly moderate people in Israel, to say to those who were more militant, "Look, you chaps, do not get excited. In the final issue there is nothing to worry about, Nobody can bust up our frontiers because we have got the tripartite guarantee of our frontiers.
I have been in Israel and in some of the Arab countries many times over the last few years and I have heard that actually said in arguments between militant and non-militant people. But once the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, everybody in Israel, militant and non-militant alike, understood at once that the only frontiers which the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to guarantee were not the existing frontiers, but the frontiers of the 1947 settlement.

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mikardo: If the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head now, because he did not mean that when he said it—

The Prime Minister: I said that.

Mr. Mikardo: —all I can say is that he ought to use the language he knows so well with much greater precision.
The plain fact of the matter is that not only in Israel, but in the Arab States as well, everybody became convinced that the tripartite guarantee, so far as the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, did not guarantee the present frontiers but guaranteed only frontiers within which every Israeli knows he cannot prevent Israel from being pushed into the sea if there should be another Arab attack. What that speech did was to make the tripartite guarantee valueless to Israel, and hence it took away one of the main props of peace in the Middle East.
There was a second contribution which Her Majesty's Government made to increasing tension in the Middle East, and they made it very recently. They made it when there was a proposal, of which Her Majesty's Government were not altogether without knowledge, information and connivance, that Iraqi troops should move into Jordan. Anybody who knows that area at all knows that the one thing which is bound to upset the uneasy balance of force between Israel and the Arab States would be Iraqi troops or Egyptian troops in very large numbers in Jordan.
I am no strategist, I confess at once, but it seems to me to be a matter of simple common sense that if you are a country—

Mr. H. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Mikardo: This is a short debate and I want to be quick. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, or at least I hope that he tries to do so.
It seems to me to be a matter of simple common sense that if you are ringed round by enemies, some of whom have common frontiers with you and some have not, in assessing their forces and in assessing what you need to meet their forces, you do not count the forces of countries which have not got a common frontier with you as being equal, man for man, with those who are actually next door.
What Her Majesty's Government tried to organise, or, anyhow, appeared to try to organise two or three weeks ago, was a common frontier in military terms between Iraq and Israel. They must have known that that was the greatest single contribution to increased tension that anyone could have introduced. The connection between that and the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Guildhall is that two days before the Iraqis said they were going to move troops into Jordan, Nuri-es-Said made a speech which was almost word for word a repetition of the right hon. Gentleman's Guildhall speech. It was Nuri Pasha himself, who is clever enough always to know what he is after, who accepted the close connection between the right hon. Gentleman's abandonment of the tripartite guarantees in so far as they affected the present


frontiers of Israel and the proposal that Iraqi troops should move into Jordan.
I do not wonder—indeed, I understand it, and I approve—that the Prime Minister is hesitating to chuck any names about at this stage and to brand anybody as aggressors. It may well be because his conscience will not allow him to start pinning blame upon other people when he knows that so much of the blame for the present tension in the Middle East rests on the Government Front Bench.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has shown in his speech that there is not, and cannot be, any basis of legality for the action which Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take. In a way, my right hon. Friend's arguments were a work of supererogation, because the Prime Minister did not even claim that there was any basis of legality for it. He did not rest his action upon the 1950 tripartite guarantee, nor did he rest it upon the 1954 Agreement with Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman said—in so far as it is true that it is a matter which deeply concerns both sides of the House—that there were British ships going through the Canal or approaching the entrance to the Canal and that they contained British subjects, and that if there was fighting around the Canal those British subjects might be in danger. He said that we were taking action only on those grounds.
But, in one day there are ships of six, eight or ten nationalities going through the Canal. Suppose that every country which has a ship going through the Canal at this minute, or has a ship lined up at the entrance to go through tomorrow, arrogated unto itself the right to be the policeman in the way the right hon. Gentleman has done, and we suddenly found descending on Egypt at four o'clock tomorrow morning the troops of all those other countries. What sort of a mess would it be? Who would be fighting whom?
Let us be clear about this. This is not altogether as fanciful as it might sound. There is a great deal of Russian shipping which uses the Suez Canal. [HON. MEMBERS : "There are Russian pilots, too."] I guess that there are more Russians in Egypt at the moment than British, certainly in Cairo, which I visited a few weeks ago. Suppose the

Russians were to say, "Our people will be endangered by fighting at the Canal." The Russians have plenty of paratroops and airborne troops. Suppose the Russians said to Egypt," We should like you to have some of our troops. We give you until four o'clock tomorrow morning to kiss them on both cheeks, but if you do not do that they are coming anyway." Then, when our troops got over from Cyprus they might find themselves in the same flying range as Russian troops. Is that a development which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would welcome?
Yet, since the right hon. Gentleman has not rested his case for his action upon any basis of legality, and since he has not claimed for it any more legality than there is for Russian troops being in the satellite States of Eastern Europe, what will he say if the Russians decide that they, too, must protect then-nationals in their ships and in Egypt by sending their troops in?
In fact, the action proposed by the Government is a direct and outrageous defiance of what the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) called "the rule of law". If ever the rule of law was defied, this is it. What has the right hon. Gentleman done? He has said to the Security Council, "Please, will you consider this situation, but irrespective of what you decide and irrespective of whether you have made a decision we are going to do what we like at four o'clock tomorrow morning."

Major Legge-Bourke: Has the hon. Gentleman overlooked that under the 1888 Convention we have a duty which we inherited from the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, which placed upon us, second only to Egypt, the object of ensuring free passage through the Canal?

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given his own point away. He says "second only to Egypt," and since it is second only to Egypt, we have no right to carry out that obligation in defiance of Egypt's wishes. I do not wish to continue his argument about legality. The rule of law at the moment, whatever hon. Gentlemen who laugh at the United Nations may think, rests in the United Nations, and the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that by sending this matter to the United Nations at the very


first minute he could possibly have done so, about the same time as he brought it to us this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the rule of law rests in the United Nations. What is the good, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is aggrieved by one of my actions, of hauling me before a police court and saying to the magistrates in advance, "I am going to knock this fellow's eye out in 12 hours' time, whatever you may think about it."? This is in utter and open defiance of the rule of law at any time. I say this with regret, but I fear that it is because deep down hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not really care twopence beyond lip-service about the United Nations. One can see that by the reaction when my right hon. Friend was speaking and mentioned the United Nations and by the reaction of some hon. Gentlemen opposite who had brought their Llandudno manners to Westminster.
I want to make one final point. My right hon. Friend said—and, of course, he was right—that it is not clear to any of us, and cannot be as yet, whether this invasion by the Israelis is anything more than, so to speak, retaliation in death, whether it is anything more than an attempt to clean up bases from which the fedayeen have been operating. I should like to direct the attention of the House for one moment to the background of what has been obviously—anyone can read it on the record—the military thinking by the Israelis over the last year or two. Until last year the main bases of the fedayeen—and they are not just ordinary infiltrators or commandos, they are rather tough stuff—was at E1 Auja and that is why, last year, the Israelis, instead of going for the infiltrators, then went for the base at E1 Auja, beat it up and then withdrew hoping that that would be the end of the fedayeen raids. So it was for a while until a new base for the fedayeen was built on the same frontier further south at Kuntilla.
It is clear, therefore, that the Israelis' object now in moving across the northern half of the Sinai desert on the route which they have taken is, to put it shortly and perhaps a little to over-simplify it, to demilitarise the Sinai Peninsula because, as long as there is some part of that area not demilitarised and certainly some part near their own frontier, there will always

be fedayeen raids, which means that they will always have the problem of maintaining the security of their frontier settlements. If one wants to look for evidence that there is some basis for this—and I do not pretend to ex cathedra knowledge and I am only trying to analyse it—it will, I think, be found in two places.
The first is the route that the Israelis chose. If one is going to invade Egypt from Israel there are three routes. There is a good route on the coast; there is not a bad route, which is fairly short, through E1 Auja ; and there is a long and difficult route through Kuntilla. If the objective was to cut across the Canal and into Cairo the third route would have been the very last to choose.
A second piece of evidence is that throughout the whole of today, with all the news that there has been on the tape about this, there has been no news about fighting or about further advance. In fact, what has happened is that the Israelis have not gone to the Canal, and my guess is that they will not go near the Canal. They have cut across the Sinai Peninsula to demilitarise it and to deny supplies to the Egyptian batteries on the point of that peninsula. Those are the batteries which deny Israeli shipping passage to the port of Eilat.
I should have thought that that was a reasonable analysis of what they are doing, and I should imagine that if the Prime Minister really wants to put an end to the fighting quickly, instead of acting unilaterally, what he could do would be to probe whether the Israeli Government's intention is what I believe it to be—to withdraw their forces back to their frontier on the understanding that the Sinai Peninsula will remain demilitarised.
If he could probe that understanding and use his great influence to give a guarantee to the Israelis that the demilitarisation of the Sinai Peninsula will stick, I think that he could put an end to the fighting without laying himself open to the accusation, which the whole world will make, that the action he has taken today has got nothing to do with the Israeli invasion, but is based entirely on his policy of three months ago.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has made a speech which does


less than justice to his knowledge of the Middle East. He tried to convince the House that both Arab and Israeli alike were quite satisfied with the existing frontier between Israel and the Arab States until the Prime Minister's speech at the Guildhall. He knows perfectly well that that is an absolute travesty of the facts. He knows equally well that neither did my right hon. Friend not mean to say nor did he say that the only frontiers he had in mind were frontiers laid clown in the 1947 Agreement. Nobody who fairly reads the text of that speech at the Guildhall could conceivably place that interpretation upon it.
lf the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me for saying so, I thought that his speech was a little unreal in relation to the circumstances that we are discussing. He missed out one most important factor, the time factor. This is not a question of peace or war, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) rightly said, because Israel and Egypt are at war now. While we are discussing these great events Israeli and Egyptian forces are in action against each other. The Israeli forces are 60, 50 or 40 miles, it may be even less, from the Suez Canal.
Once fighting has broken out between Israel and Egypt it is absurd for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest—unless both sides agree, as we hope they will, to withdraw—that either we or the United States or France can stand aside indefinitely and see the whole Middle East blow up in flames. Of course we cannot. Unless the Israelis and the Egyptians agree to a cease fire, sooner or later the Powers concerned have to intervene.

Mr. Svdney Silverman: Which are the Powers concerned?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The Tripartite Powers. And the longer the intervention is put off, the larger must be the scale of intervention.

Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: No. We have had quite long speeches from hon. Members, and in a debate extending over only two hours I do not think I need give way to the hon. Gentleman whose

views are well known and whose intervention I could probably forecast. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to speak later on.
I do not understand why the Opposition Front Bench should take exception to the Government's proposal that both Israel and Egypt should withdraw 10 miles from the Suez Canal. I think that a reasonable, sound and sensible suggestion. I do not see why they should take exception to the proposal which accompanied that request, that unless both sides did agree to withdraw, British and French forces should intervene in the Canal Zone. I will give three reasons why I think that, without an agreement to withdraw and a cessation of hostilities, it is absolutely right and indeed vital that Anglo-French forces should intervene. Short of an agreement to cease hostilities, the sooner such forces intervene the better. Of course we all hope, indeed, as the Prime Minister said, we all pray, that common-sense and second thoughts may come to both sides and that both Egypt and Israel will agree to cease hostilities. But, short of that, the sooner Anglo-French forces move in the better, for three very good reasons.
First, because, as my right hon. Friend said, British lives are involved. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at that?

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: No, I cannot give way.

Mr. Paget: But—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Why should right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at that? Why should that be a bad reason for intervention? I think it was the hon. Member for Reading who said that there are other nationals involved. Of course there are. But I think I am correct in saying that we bear the prime responsibility for their safety. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will tell us, and I should like to know—I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to know—how many civilian contractors are still in the Canal Zone—perhaps several thousands, and they are


British subjects. I do not know offhand how many British subjects or how many Maltese or other citizens with British passports are still in Cairo and Alexandria, but so long as they hold British passports they are entitled to protection. I do not know what the numbers are, and no doubt the Foreign Secretary will tell us ; but that is one very good reason for intervening soon, failing an agreement to cease hostilities.
Now for the second reason. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that every 24 hours or so there are British ships worth about £50 million or more going through the Canal. [An HON. MEMBER : "Ships without cargoes."] The cargoes would be worth more still. Is the protection of those ships and cargoes of no interest to hon. Gentlemen opposite? What will happen if tonight one or more of these ships becomes involved, through no fault of its own, in a kind of dog-fight between Israeli and Egyptian forces and the Canal is blocked and lives are lost? There will be no free passage of ships through the Canal.
The hon. Member for Reading said "Of course, a lot of other ships belonging to other nations are using the Canal". That is quite true. He asked why they did not intervene. If we and the French obtained assistance from other nations whose ships used the Canal and we got a kind of cordon sanitaire to ensure free passage to ships through the Canal, I should welcome it. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite think it is a strange idea. I thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were wedded to the idea of an international police force. If other nations whose ships go through the Canal and whose interests are similarly involved would like to help us to keep the Canal open and protect all the nationals involved, I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or anybody else would object to it. We can leave that argument where it stands.
The third reason it is essential that action should be taken quickly, if there is no cessation of hostilities, is that if the Anglo-French forces were to go into the Canal Zone there is at least a chance—I would not put it higher than that—that we might establish a cordon sanitaire between the belligerent forces and confine the conflict at an early stage to reasonable

proportions. If we wait much longer there will be no chance of doing that.
It is not wise or profitable for this House to enter into a technical legal argument about who was the original aggressor, Israel or the Arab States. Since the party opposite, for reasons good or bad, handed over the Mandate for Palestine, and thereby created a vacuum, there has been a long series of raids, counter-raids and reprisals. It is impossible to establish in international law any kind of proof of who first started them, and it would be very undesirable and a waste of time to enter into a long argument as to which was the more culpable.
At least I can say, for the attention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that anybody who read what Colonel Nasser has written or listened to what he has said cannot have much doubt that in his mind Israel is now the top of the list of intended victims. I therefore wonder whether it is unreasonable, much as we may deplore it, that Israel should take counter-action at this time.
The party opposite has to make up its mind on three matters this evening. First, do they or do they not attach any importance to the free passage of ships of all nations through the Canal? That is the first question on which they must make up their minds.
Secondly, are they prepared to take any action of any kind to establish the law of order or do they wish, by never doing anything at all, to revert to the law of the jungle? It is no good hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite saying to us, "Of course you have no faith in the Security Council and no faith in the United Nations." That is not true. We took the previous dispute to the Security Council and we have taken this dispute there. But to pretend that the machinery of the Security Council is perfect and that the misuse of the veto does not hamstring all action is to bury one's head in the sand. It was never intended, when the United Nations Charter was originally drawn up, that the veto should completely prevent anybody from ever doing anything.
Thirdly, so long as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we must never on any account take any action unless it is authorised by the United


Nations, what they mean is that we must never on any account take any action at all to preserve our own interests or those of anybody else ; we must always do nothing until it is too late. Then, in retrospect, they will revert to their traditional rôle and pretend, many years afterwards, that in fact they had wanted to do something.
If the two belligerent Powers, Egypt and Israel, can agree to stop fighting and to withdraw ten miles from the Canal Zone, or even if the worst comes to the worst and Anglo-French forces intervene and keep the two belligerents apart, I think there may be a better chance now than there has been for a long time--providing that we can confine this conflict to reasonable proportions—of getting some sort of settlement about the frontiers. I am not in the least impressed by the arguments of the party opposite that all we had to do in the past to prevent this conflagration was to have given arms to Israel when the Egyptians were buying arms from Czechoslovakia. Suppose we had allowed Israel to have an unlimited supply of arms. What would be the position now? There would still have been an explosion, but it would have been a much bigger one. That is not a policy at all.
I believe that if we can persuade both sides to withdraw and to cease fighting there may be a chance of getting an agreement, even if only a temporary agreement, about the frontiers ; and if we can get them to agree about the frontiers, we should be able gradually to dry up a running sore in a part of the world where for many years there has been so much misery when there might have been so much prosperity.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I will be very short and raise only one point with the Foreign Secretary, but before I come to that, may I say that I am very pleased to find that there is such a general agreement in the House today about the dangers and anxieties which have been confronting Israel and its people for a great number of years and a great deal of sympathy with Israel. I only wish that that sympathy and anxiety had been expressed for some years past as many of us have attempted to express it, instead of being something which

seems to have been suddenly discovered. No country has suffered so much continually throughout its existence as Israel and its people. The whole time it has had to be under arms, the whole time it has been threatened, day after day it has heard on the wireless that Egypt's one object was the destruction and complete obliteration of Israel as a State.
Now Israel has invaded Egyptian territory. The answer to the question, who declared war and who invaded another's territory does not settle the question of who is the aggressor. If I might remind the House, so far as I know nobody throughout the world has at any time accused this country of being the aggressor in either the 1914 or the 1939 war, yet we were the only people who declared war upon Germany. Therefore, it does not follow that those who issue a declaration of war, or who do invade, are the actual aggressors.
Be that as it may, the invasion has taken place. The anxiety of everybody now is to bring about, as quickly as possible, the cessation of hostilities and, if we cannot do that, to confine the trouble to as narrow an area as we possibly can. Naturally, the first thing that one does is to turn to the United Nations. I am glad that the Government did that first, and joined with the United States and France in bringing this matter before the Security Council, which is now discussing this very question.
So far so good, but while that is happening there is danger. There may be danger to the Canal, danger to human lives and danger to ships in the Canal. I assume for the moment, and only for this purpose, that inasmuch as the Security Council of the United Nations has no international police force to act for it, we, who have hitherto always been regarded as the nation which has acted as a police force in the Middle East, have done the right thing in saying to both nations," Stop fighting "; saying to both of them," Back away from your present positions and allow a big demilitarised zone to be established."
Then we go one step further. We say." Answer that—and answer another question, Egypt. Will you allow the French forces and our forces to come in, even as token forces"—I will assume that—" and occupy three bases alongside the Canal?"
For what purpose? That is the question I want to ask. If it is true that the Israeli troops have turned away from the Canal, and that all they desire to do—and that I can well understand, and I should think that everybody would say, "Well, you have suffered so much ; there comes a moment when you have to act"—is to sweep around these commandos, these murder gangs that cross the border every now and again, and put an end to them ; if they are prepared to turn back, so that no lives are now in danger, the Canal is not in danger, the shipping is not in danger, is there, then, any reason whatsoever to go on with this last part? That is the one and only point with which I should really like to hear the Foreign Secretary deal.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has, I think, put his finger on a vital point. The Government cannot escape the suspicion that their actions in this matter are not directed towards the real problem that faces us, the incursion of the Israeli in Egypt, but that they are using this opportunity to fulfil their long-cherished designs to regain control of the Suez Canal.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, it is a plain test of their sincerity that the Government should say that if no British lives are at stake, and if the Israelis are, in fact, leaving the Canal Zone, there can be no possible cause whatever for proceeding with the action which they have outlined tonight.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) gave three reasons for the action proposed by the Government ; that British lives were in danger ; that British property and interests were threatened ; and that a cordon sanitaire, as he said, between the Israelis and Egyptians might be a good thing. Each of those reasons obviously depends upon the assumption that the Israelis intend to hold the Canal line, but if, in fact, they withdraw, it would be folly to land British and French troops in the Canal Zone. The position would be ludicrous and indefensible, and I am sure that the

House expects the Foreign Secretary to make this point perfectly clear when he winds up the debate.
Surely the objective that we want is a clear one. We want a cease-fire and the withdrawal of the Israeli troops to the frontier. I should have thought that the obvious first course of the Government should have been to demand these things at the Security Council at its present session. Already, two great Powers have stated that the Israeli forces must return forthwith to the frontier. Those are the Soviet Union and the United States. So far us I know, two great Powers, the French and the British, have not made that statement.
I do not understand why the Government have not made this clear. Personally, I have no hesitation in speaking much more frankly about the Israeli action than either the hon. Member for Windsor or the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. It seems to me that whatever the provocation—and there are, extenuating circumstances—this act by the Israeli Government is an act of aggression against Egypt. I do not see any point in covering this up.
Of course, the Israelis can claim that they were threatened with a future war by the Arab countries We understand and sympathise with those fears. But to use that suggestion as a justification for armed aggression against one's neighbours is an act of folly which should be condemned. We shall get into a very bad position both in the United Nations and in this country if we slur over the fact that a vital matter of principle is at stake and that this is an act of aggression.
Even on the provocations, about which we have heard and which are real, we have to remember that there are not provocations on the frontiers from one side only and that the Israeli Government have been condemned unanimously by the Security Council on this point.
Further—and this is the last point I wish to make on this subject—this act has been shrewdly timed. It has been most deliberate. It has obviously been in consideration for many days past and it was launched at a time which, clearly, had been most carefully chosen both in relation to the great temptations that this act would put on the British and French


Governments to send troops into the Canal Zone, which they have been wanting to do for some time past, and also because of the American preoccupation with the elections and the Soviet preoccupation in Eastern Europe.
It is quite wrong not to speak plainly about what is, in my opinion, an act of aggression. But what should be the answer to that? The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery disappointed me by saying that the British Government have a police responsibility in this matter. I think that is a very dangerous point of view in these times. It is very dangerous indeed and derogatory to the authority of the United Nations, which is one of the things we must preserve as a British interest.

Mr. Osborne: It is historically true.

Mr. Mayhew: It is historically true, but we are not historians here. We are dealing with the present. One of the basic troubles with the hon. Gentleman is that he is bringing to this problem a very old-fashioned attitude to power and international relations. That was the thing that let down hon. Members opposite over the Suez problem and is letting them down again today.
We cannot act today as we did in Alexandria in 1886. It was a fine day and the British fleet sailed towards the port of Alexandria and opened fire and bombarded her. Those days cannot return. We must try to deal with this problem in a realistic fashion.
It is clear that the Government's proposed action makes no contribution to the objective of getting Israeli troops back to the frontier. One quotation of the American delegate on the Security Council struck me as well deserved. He said:
No one certainly should lake advantage of this situation to pursue any selfish interests.
That is a statement of the American delegate on the Security Council. He did not say against whom that criticism was made but I do not think that on this occasion it was the Soviet Union. I think that this was a fear expressed about the actions of the British and French Governments.
It is impossible to believe that, if the Government's real intention was to secure the withdrawal, of Israeli troops to the frontier and a cease-fire, they would have

chosen these particular places to which to send French and British troops. It is all too clear, I am afraid, that they are trying to link up the Israeli incursion with the Suez problem which they have long wanted to solve in their own way.
They are not acting under the Charter. They are not acting under the Tripartite Declaration; they have said so. They are not even acting under the reactivation clause of the old Suez agreement. They are not acting under any international instrument of any kind. But, quite apart from the morality of it, one must consider the practicability of defending vital British interests by action which might so easily, and probably will, if it is carried out, lead us into war with Egypt.
From the point of view of practicability, it seems to me absolutely absurd. We cannot guarantee the passage of the Canal by fighting Egypt, and we cannot guarantee our oil supplies in this country by attacking Arab countries which will have the united support of other Arab countries which have oil resources. These points of practicability are as valid today in relation to the action proposed by the Government as they were valid when we were discussing the Suez issue so recently in the House of Commons.
The frightening aspect of the discussion we have had has been the complete defeatism of the Government about the United Nations. None of us had any illusions about the Security Council; that is true. But on this occasion the prospect is not necessarily very unfavourable for big-Power agreement in the Security Council; it is not nearly so unfavourable as it has been on almost every occasion in the past. Surely the Government should at least have waited before announcing these drastic measures until this discussion now going on in the Security Council this evening.
Why so precipitate? Is it because the action they wish to take in relation to this incursion by Israel is the precise action they wished to take before and which the Security Council did not entertain? With the best will in the world, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government have a double purpose in the action they suggest to us tonight. If this appears so to many in this House and in the country, it will certainly appear


so to many millions of people in Asia, the Middle East and throughout the world. That is the construction that they will put upon it.
I would beg the Foreign Secretary, first, to give an assurance that, on the assumption that Israeli forces are withdrawn, there can be no question of our reoccupying the Canal ; and, secondly, that under no circumstances will force be used unilaterally by the French and British without the prior consent of the Security Council.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, neither was it our intention to have two Front Bench speakers. I do not therefore propose to take up very many minutes, and I do not propose to go over all the ground which has already been covered in this debate ; but because the Foreign Secretary is to reply tonight, and because it will depend very largely upon the reply of the Foreign Secretary as to what happens in relation to a vote on this matter, I must, I think, say one or two words finally on behalf of this side of the House.
The Prime Minister this afternoon said that he had consulted the Commonwealth, and I rather gathered that he had consulted the United States. That was my impression. Other people's impressions are not quite the same. It seems exceedingly strange, if that is the case, that there should be the statement from the United States State Department today that it had received no prior warning of the British and French intention to move troops into the Suez area if Egypt and Israel do not stop fighting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I admit that the Prime Minister was replying to a quick supplementary question from this side of the House. I am sure he would not want to mislead the House knowingly, and it may well be that the Foreign Secretary would like to clear up the point. It is germane in view of the fact that the Tripartite Declaration—

Mr. Denis Healey: I took the precaution of noting what the Prime Minister said in reply to my question. His words were : "We have been in close communication with the United States Government."

Mr. Robens: I am sure that the Prime Minister, through the Foreign Secretary, will want to make it clear whether he was in fact in consultation with the United States in view of the statement by the State Department that it had no prior warning of the intention of the British and the French to move troops into the Suez area. It would be exceedingly serious for the Prime Minister, perhaps unwittingly, to mislead the House and for the British and French to take this action when, in fact, the Americans have not been informed and have not had the opportunity of giving their views or agreeing with what the Prime Minister has announced.
Following that, one should look at what Mr. Cabot Lodge has said at the Security Council. He said:
Failure by the Council to react at this time would be an avoidance of the responsibilities to maintain peace and security. The Government of the United States feels it imperative that the Council act in the promptest manner to determine whether a breach of the peace has occurred, to have a cease fire ordered immediately and to obtain the withdrawal of Israeli Forces behind the frontier line Nothing else will suffice.
It seems to me that if the British Government ranged themselves behind that kind of declaration, they would do more towards peaceful negotiations in the Middle East than the action they now contemplate.
I know that the Foreign Secretary must have time to reply, and I therefore content myself with just one more minute. It is terribly important that when this country is virtually going to war the House of Commons should be united. The Prime Minister has a great personal responsibility in this matter. He does not want a divided House. We do not want a divided House, and I will tell the Prime Minister how he can avoid it.
In view of what I have just said in relation to the speech by Mr. Cabot Lodge and in relation to what the State Department has said, if the Foreign Secretary can say on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government that they will not take this military action until the Security Council has fully discussed the matter and come to a decision, the Prime Minister can avoid a vote on this matter tonight.
If we are compelled to vote tonight, it is because we are against the use of military force outside the Charter of the


United Nations and whilst the Security Council is at the moment discussing the problem. I therefore beg and urge the Prime Minister not to divide the House. He can lose nothing by postponing this decision for forty-eight hours, by which time the Security Council will have made its decision. I plead with him to do it. The Foreign Secretary has the opportunity to do that now, to keep this country united, and not have a declaration of war—because that is what this ultimatum will mean—with half of this House and half the country against the action proposed to be taken.

9.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): There has been some complaint today from the Opposition benches about the Government's failure to consult the Opposition before taking action. The facts are that the moment the Prime Minister had finished his discussions with the French Ministers he at once spoke to the leaders of the Opposition. Really, this idea that the Government of the day can take action only after prior agreement with the Opposition—

Mr. Gaitskell: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Gaitskell: First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and I saw the Prime Minister at 4.15, a quarter of an hour before the debate, and were given the statement. We appreciated seeing it at least 15 minutes before the debate, but that was not consultation. Secondly, I did not complain about failure on the part of the Government to consult us. I was making it plain that they did not do so, and that they could not expect, in the absence of that consultation and agreement with us, that they would automatically have unity.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think we have ever suggested there should automatically be unity. We certainly do not want a rubber stamp from the Opposition. We shall do what we believe to be right in the interests of the country, and it is for the Opposition to do what they think is right. All this talk about dividing the House—if the House is divided tonight it will be the responsibility of the Opposition, and I believe that in this serious

situation that is something which the country will not forgive.
There has been a good deal of talk today about the general situation in the Middle East. After the latest interjections, perhaps I ought not to say what I am going to say, but this situation in the Middle East was, after all, a bequest to us from the Opposition. We did not contrive the ending of the Mandate in the way in which it was ended.
I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) went to the limit of partisanship when he attacked the Prime Minister's speech at the Guildhall. What was it the Prime Minister said then? He said that there should be a compromise—is there something very wicked about that?—between the views of Israel and of the Arab States, a compromise between the 1947 and the 1948 frontiers. Is that a very wicked suggestion to put forward? Quite obviously, if there is ever to be a settlement of the situation between Israel and the Arab States there has got to be some give and take on each side.
We have tried in a difficult period, under much criticism from the Opposition, to keep the ring, certainly over the supply of arms. After we had been abused for four years for not giving Israel enough arms, the hon. Member for Coventry. East (Mr. Crossman) got up one day and said that Israel could wipe the Arab States off the face of the map. We have tried to do the fair thing by each of the countries concerned and to keep the ring and hold the balance, and that is our policy today.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that we were trying to impose a settlement or a solution by this action that we have taken. Nothing is further from our thoughts. It may be that a solution may be facilitated thereby, but the question of a settlement between Israel and the Arab States will not come out of this particular situation. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we were seeking to judge the rights and the wrongs of the present situation. That is precisely what we have sought to avoid doing.
There is considerable argument, I think, on this question of aggression and self-defence. I gather from the speeches today that most hon. Members opposite seem to think that Israel has been guilty


of an act of aggression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes" and "No."] Some seem to say "Yes" and some to say "No," and some seem to be begging the question. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Foreign Secretary?"] I shall tell the House.
This presents a matter which must be carefully debated and discussed [An HON. MEMBER: "An ultimatum."] If a man has said that he is going to cut one's throat is it an act of aggression if one kicks the knife out of his hand? We must remember the facts of the situation and that, as has been said, Israel is the next target, the next on the list of priorities. There have been a series of incidents, interference with communications and the acts of these commando raiders. This is nothing like a simple issue—that simply because Israel has crossed the frontiers or the armistice lines, that is an aggression.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is disorderly for the hon. Member to remain standing unless the Minister gives way.

Mr. Healey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. I have been following the right hon. and learned Gentleman with great attention. Can he explain why, a few weeks ago, when Israel took far less severe action in crossing the Jordan frontier in response to a series of major incidents the same week, he took the opportunity, within an hour of the report, of issuing a strong and severe condemnation of Israel for taking that action?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the situation between Jordan and Israel is quite different from the situation between Egypt and Israel. [Laughter.] The fact that hon. and right hon. Members laugh at that statement shows their complete failure to know the facts of the situation. The idea that Jordan is a threat to the continued existence of Israel as a State is absolute nonsense. Really, the hon. Gentleman should know better than to make the intervention he has done.
What I was saying was that this question of aggression and self-defence is nothing like as simple as some hon. Members have tried to make out. It is a matter which needs to be debated and discussed at great length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Now hon. Gentlemen are showing greater touch with reality, because that is exactly what will happen—at great length. It will be debated at great length because it is nothing like a simple issue.
What we have said is that we cannot postpone our action until the conclusion of that discussion and that debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we are faced with an actual situation. We are faced with a situation in which Israeli troops are within a few miles of Suez. We are faced with a situation when, this afternoon, air activity has begun to increase on each side. We are faced with a situation in which there may at any moment be a threat to British lives and British ships passing through the Canal.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked me a question to which I will try to give him an answer according to the information in my possession. I believe that the threat of hostilities in the neighbourhood of the Canal is as great this evening as it was at any time since this thing started. The right hon. and learned Member rather suggested that the prospect of hostilities on the Canal had faded away because the Israeli forces were being withdrawn. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that the threat of incidents, and the threat of air activity, is as great this evening as it has been at any time during the past 24 hours.
After all, if we think of the military situation and of the position of the Israeli forces and of the risks of Egyptian forces debouching from the Canal into Sinai, obviously the Canal area is a vital area to both sides so far as their military activities are concerned.

Mr. C. Davies: What are the facts as known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman now? That is really what I was asking.

Mr. Lloyd: The facts as known to us at the present time are that Israeli forces are within a very few miles of Suez. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which way?"] They are moving towards Suez. They have been moving towards Suez, they are moving towards Suez and they are within very close distance of Suez. That is our information. There is also information of the increase of air activity, and I should have thought that it would be common sense to assess this as a threat


to free passage through the Canal. And I believe that there is at the present time a threat of sufficient degree to require us to lake straight away the action which we propose.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry, but I have only a very few moments left to me.
There is a fundamental point which this House and other countries will have to face. We have created a system of international law and order in which we have to face the fact that the Security Council is, first, frustrated by the veto and, secondly, that it cannot act immediately. In a sense, the policeman has his hands tied behind his back. He has to wait a long time before he is allowed to play his part.
I myself believe that, if you have accepted that system, you are only safe if you also retain the rights of individual countries to defend their own nationals and their own interests. [Interruption.] There are interruptions from the Opposition about Hungary. I really cannot understand their relevance. I should have thought that the fight which is taking place there because the people of that country wish to assert their rights was so praiseworthy as not to be dragged into this debate.
We say that in the present international system, where the Security Council is subject to the veto, there must be the right for individual countries to intervene in an emergency to take action to defend their own nationals and their own interests. After all, we in this country have far more ships than any other country, we have far more of our seamen and

nationals going through the Canal at the present time than other countries have. I just do not understand why it should be so abhorrent to the Opposition that we should take decisive action to assert our rights to defend our own people.

The suggestion is made that we should agree to defer any action until the conclusion of the Security Council debate. That is an undertaking which I believe it is quite impossible and impracticable for any Government to give. We have got to reserve to ourselves the right to take the necessary action in an emergency at the time we think fit. In spite of all the noise that has been made by the Opposition on this matter, I believe that the action that we are taking—[Interruption.]

In this matter we have never claimed that we have acted in agreement with the United States of America. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have certainly been in close touch with the Government of the United States throughout this controversy, but we have never said that we have acted with their approval and authority. We believe that this is a decision which we and the French Government have had to take in our own right, and, really, it is a decision in the interests of the peace of that area.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sydney Silverman.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Herbert W. Bowden: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put accordingly. That this House do now adjourn :—

The House divided : Ayes 218. Noes 270.

Division No. 295.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cronin, J. D.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brockway, A. F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Anderson, Frank
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Awbery, S. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, L. J.
Deer, G.


Baird, J.
Carmichael, J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Balfour, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Donnelly, D. L.


Beswick, F.
Clunie, J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Coldrick, W.
Dye, S.


Blackburn, F.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edelman, M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Boardman, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cove, W. G.
Edwards, W, J. (Stepney)


Boyd, T. C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)




Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fienburgh, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William


Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Royle, C.


Fletcher, Eric
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Forman, J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibson, C. W.
McInnes, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Gooch, E. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Snow, J. W.


Greenwood, Anthony
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Grey, C. F.
Mahon, Simon
Steele, T.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hale, Leslie
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)


Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Healey, Denis
Moss, R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moyle, A.
Thornton, E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.
Timmons, J.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Tomney, F.


Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.
Usborne, H. C.


Holmes, Horace
Oram, A. E.
Viant, S. P.


Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.
Warbey, W. N.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Oswald, T.
Watkins, T. E.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Owen, W. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
West, D. G.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, Frederick


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pentland, N.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. H. (Openshaw)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Probert, A. R.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, H. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Kenyon, C.
Redhead, E. C.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.



King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Lawson, G. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.


Ledger, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cunningham, Knox


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Dance, J. C. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Deedes, W. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Digby, Simon Wingfieid


Armstrong, C. W.
Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Ashton, H.
Bryan, P.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Atkins, H. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Drayson, G. B.


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, Sir David
du Cann, E. D. L.


Barber, Anthony
Carr, Robert
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Barlow, Sir John
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Barter, John
Channon, H.
Duthie, W. S.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cole, Norman
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cooper, A. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bidgood, J. C.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Errington, Sir Eric


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Erroll, F. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Black, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.
Fell, A.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Finlay, Graeme







Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pott, H. P.


Fort, R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch


Foster, John
Leather, E. H. C.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leavey, J. A.
Profumo, J. D.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Leburn, W. G.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Freeth, D. K.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ramsden, J. E.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Redmayne, M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Glover, D.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Llewellyn, D. T.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Gower, H. R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robertson, Sir David


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Longden, Gilbert
Roper, Sir Harold


Green, A.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gurden, Harold
McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Sharples, R. C.


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Shepherd, William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
McKibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Soames, Capt, C.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, R. M.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Hay, John
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Teeling, W.


Holt, A. F.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hope, Lord John
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornby, R. P.
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Howard, John (Test)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hughes Hallett Vice-Admiral J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Iremonger, T, L.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Oakshott, H. D.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Page, R. G.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Keegan, D.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wood, Hon. R.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Partridge, E.
Woollam, john Victor


Kerr, H. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Kershaw, J. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Kirk, P. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Mr. Heath and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

WHITE FISH AUTHORITY (LEVY)

10.9 p.m.

Captain M. Hewitson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Authority (General Levy) (Amendment) Regulations Confirmatory Order, 1956 (S.I., 1956. No. 1061), dated 9th July 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be annulled.
It is my intention to place before the House the particular circumstances of the fishing industry in Hull and to show the price they have to pay to the White Fish Authority.
In 1951, when the Act was passed by this House bringing the White Fish Authority into being, it was a more or less agreed Measure. At that time it was thought that such an Authority would bring some prosperity to sections of the fishing industry that were not so well placed either financially or in fishing technique as the Port of Hull. During that debate I expressed misgivings about the advisability of creating such an Authority, but, as I have said, the volume of opinion among hon. Members of both sides of the House was in favour of it.
I think I am safe in saying that since 1951 until the present time, we have had nothing coming up to the expectations that we had in 1951. We have had the exhibition—I repeat, the exhibition—of an Authority, brought into being to guide, counsel and help the fishing industry, setting itself up as a sort of imitation—that is all it is—Government Department, seeking all the prestige it can get and acting as a sort of unofficial Government Department.
I think the history of the Authority proves that. In the first year it started quite humbly with an expenditure of about £25,000. Last year, the expenditure reached a figure of £130,000. This Order of the Minister asking to double the present levy will bring the figure into the neighbourhood of £250,000 to £300,000. Hull lands one-third of the fish landings in the whole country, which means that Hull has to supply one-third of the income to this moribund body. That is a serious position for Hull. At a meeting of the Hull fish merchants, the first reaction was flatly to refuse to pay this new levy. The consequence of that

was realised; that it would be something illegal and that some fish merchants or a group of merchants might be taken to the High Court and told they had to pay.
It is not the intention of the merchants or the fishers of Hull to kill the scheme. We should like to get out of it and, if we can do that, we are prepared to pay the price. At a recent meeting—I do not know whether it was official or unofficial—when the doubling of the levy was mooted, it was suggested by Hull merchants, either to the Minister or someone at Ministerial level, that while we could not agree to the doubling of the levy, we were prepared to pay something more than the ¼d. we are paying now as the price of getting out of the scheme.
We think that the smaller and uneconomic ports should have assistance, and we are prepared to assist them. But we do not like to be "milked" by a body of this description. If, in our opinion, the expenditure of this body was for the general good of the fish industry, we should squeeze and find the means to pay. But we are not happy and content with the method by which our money is being spent.
The White Fish Authority set up headquarters for itself near Harrogate. There was nothing wrong with that, although some of us thought that it was a bit funny. It was not very comfortable there, anyway. After a period, it thought, "We must go to London and set ourselves up as a semi-Ministerial Department." It goes to London, and in the Annual Report just published we find it telling us that its high administrative costs are due to the higher costs in London. It moved from Yorkshire, where the administrative costs are the lowest in the country, and went to a place where the costs are highest. If there had been a practical man on that body he would have suggested Edinburgh.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Why not Aberdeen?

Captain Hewitson: I am speaking of a centre for administration. I will not say anything about Aberdeen as a fishing port.

Mr. Hughes: As my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting changing the centre of administration from where it is now


to Edinburgh, my submission was, "Why not move it to Aberdeen, which has a big fishing industry?"

Captain Hewitson: For the simple reason that the White Fish Authority was set up not exclusively for the benefit of Aberdeen but for the fishing industry as a whole. In tonnage of fish landed Aberdeen comes very far down the list. Let me come back to my main theme. I excuse my hon. and learned Friend for interrupting.
I was saying that if there had been practical advice on the White Fish Authority the natural centre of administration to choose would have been Edinburgh. When the White Fish Authority was set up it was clear that the industry in Scotland needed help. In Hull, we realised that and were prepared to strain ourselves to go to the assistance of poorer ports.
Let us look at the bill of costs of these people who have set themselves up as—I will not say "little Hitlers," because I will not be as rude as to say that, but the position is developing in that direction. Look at the advertising costs. It has spent £100,000 in advertising, which it has not done itself but has handed over to an agency. God bless the agency.
How does the White Fish Authority advertise? I picked up the Hull Daily Mail, a very prominent evening newspaper in Hull, one of the best in the country. A quarter, a half, or a third of a page was taken up by the White Fish Authority advising Hull to eat more fish and chips. In the name of heaven, fancy asking Hull to eat more fish and chips, when every third or fourth shop is a fish-and-chip shop. A few weeks afterwards I picked up another newspaper and read," If you want to slim, eat fish, and apply to the White Fish Authority to send you a leaflet on how to slim." I suppose the Authority cuts out chips from that leaflet because chips are fattening.
The whole thing has become ridiculous. If the Minister doubles the levy, Hull will have to pay £100,000 in levy next year. I have described the Authority's idea of advertising. It should look at the advertisements of the British Trawler Federation ; this is sensible advertising. The White Fish Authority is merely overlapping. The Minister should look at this Authority and examine its accounts. It is expenditure gone made.
Then the Authority may say, "Look at our great experiments". Let us look for a moment at some of the things these people were supposed to do. They were to deal with surpluses, but what have they done? Exactly nothing. If I may use the farmer's term, in view of the fact that this is a Measure from the Ministry of Agriculture, they have done what the farmer gave the lad for holding his horse—nowt. That has been the sum total of their policy of dealing with surpluses. It has been an abortive policy.
Next, what has been done about charging on fish boxes? Nothing whatever. Yet these are things which they were going to do. What have they done about the regulation of supplies? Exactly nothing. What of improving standards of quality and better grading? "Eat fish and chips"—bulk landings of cod. That is their idea of improving the grading. There is no difficulty in selling graded fish in this country ; graded fish can be sold anywhere at any time, and in the deep-sea ports like Hull we are quite capable of running our own marketing schemes and selling our own bulk landings. There has been no improvement in the grading of fish. What of the equalisation of transport costs? That was abandoned. One asks why. The Authority said" We examined that and it was uneconomic. When we had fish controls the Minister of Agriculture covered the cost and it could be done—"

Mr. W. S. Duthie: Who killed that scheme?—Hull.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not think we can go into the schemes. I suppose the argument being advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) is that this conduct of the Authority does not justify the additional levy demanded.

Captain Hewitson: That is what I am trying to say. We are told that the equalisation of transport costs would be uneconomic. These people simply fold their arms, sit down and that is the end of that. They do not try to find any way of equalising costs. Although Hull would probably suffer in this, we are still prepared to help them if they go forward with a brilliant idea.


They abandoned the regulation of sales on commission. Next, what of freezing fish at sea? We had the banging of drums and the sounding of trumpets. They fitted out the "Northern Wave" and said," We will send it to sea, it will go up to the Arctic Circle and try this freezing of fish at sea before coming back. This experiment will revolutionise the landing of fish in this country."
What has been the practical result? If there has been a failure, it has been the failure of the "Northern Wave." She was fitted out extensively at a cost of £150,000. She came back and landed a few tons of frozen fish at Hull and a few tons of frozen fish somewhere else. Now she is lying in the Humber, being refitted to go to sea as an ordinary trawler because the whole experiment has proved a failure.
I agree that we must have experiments to make progress. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has been conducting experiments—fishing with a screen to show where the fish shoals are. This has proved successful, and now a fishing school has been set up somewhere on the East Coast where fishermen can learn the technique of sounding fish upon these screens. The Ministry is doing this, and it is good work—but it is something which could have been done by this other moribund authority. It was the job of this Authority to have developed these schemes at the beginning.
To prove that we do not need help from these people in our Port of Hull, last week we had trials of the latest trawler, which will be the largest and the fastest for sailing, with diesel-electric engines and everything up to date which fishermen need, including the shoal screens for soundings and everything that goes with them. That has been done by our own industry in Hull.
The White Fish Authority was to have brought hygiene and all that sort of thing into industry. That may be needed in some ports but it is not needed in Hull, where we have a fleet that is second to none not only in this country but in the world. The Authority was supposed to bring in all these latest techniques of fishing, but we in Hull have been going on without them. We do not need them.

Some ports may need them, and we are prepared to help those ports with our levy. We do not need them, because we have a fishing fleet which is up-to-date and hygienic. We have up-to-date trawlers incorporating everything necessary under the health regulations.
It is really distressing to get this Order from the Minister telling us that we have to pay £100,000 a year. We have been doing things in Hull. It is the only port in the country which has a five-day week. That costs money. With this £100,000 we could go ahead with the beginnings of pension schemes, extra holiday schemes and many other guarantees. But if we are to be mulcted by an authority such as the White Fish Authority, which has no regard to spending, if we are to have this increase from ¼d to ½d., we think that, perhaps next year, we will probably be faced with the Authority suggesting to the Minister, and the Minister laying an Order, to increase this from ½d. to ld. which is permissible under the Act. That would mean that Hull would have to pay £200,000 per annum.
Well, we are not wearing that, and we suggest to the Minister that we will make a deal, in spite of the Statute. We are prepared to pay the ¼d. ; we are prepared to pay a little over the ¼d., but we shall use every method at our disposal, legal or otherwise, to contract out of this scheme, even if it means a strike—not of workpeople on the docks, but of merchants paying the levy. I see hon. Members laughing, but it was only by a flick of the finger that two or three weeks ago such action was not tried. It is only as a result of two or three people asking for good reason to prevail in order to allow this House to discuss the question first that that action was not taken.
Let me repeat what I have said. We intend to use every means at our disposal to contract out of that scheme. We have precedent in Hull for not entering into schemes. Our fish workers are not members of the Dock Labour Board, nor are our coal trimmers. The general trade unions, right across the city and the Port of Hull, are not members of national agreements. They have their own. It is something peculiar to our area.
I repeat that we shall attempt to contract out of the scheme, peacefully, if we may, but forcefully if we must. But we are prepared to do the following, even on contracting out. In respect of the levy, the present price per kit of fish is 2½d., and the Minister's proposal is to raise it to 5d. We are prepared to pay 3d. per kit into the pool while contracting out of the scheme, and we will give a guarantee of that sum each year.
In Hull we have no use for the scheme. We think that the people who are running it are not capable of running a scheme. At the beginning of last year we put seven points forward to the Authority, and after wating seven months we had still had no reply. These chair-polishing fishers knew it all. They may be able to fish with rod and line, fly-fishing for trout and salmon, but when it comes to the deep water stuff, they do not know anything at all. If I may be rude again, they know as much about deep sea fishing as a cow knows about a white shirt, and that is nothing at all. That is the atmosphere, and that is the mentality. That is how we in Hull look upon these people.
We intend to fight every inch of the way. We ask the Minister to examine the expenditure of these people upon administration and advertising and see whether he can do something about it. If he finds that he cannot, then he must realise that this question will be raised regularly in the House until he does something about it. We cannot blame the White Fish Authority if it can get away with it, but we can blame the Minister for allowing the authority to get away with it.
The Minister must get down to rock bottom and do something about it. He must ensure that these people do some of the things they were set up to do instead of setting themselves up as a sort of Ministerial authority which cannot be questioned. If we write a letter to the Minister, he replies, but these little pundits think that they need not reply.
The Minister should give serious attention to the fact that Hull would like to contract out of the scheme and pay a contribution into the fund. If the Minister is prepared to consider it, we will go more than halfway to meet him. If not, then we shall fight, I will not say "to the

last drop of blood"—we had plenty of that in the previous debate—but we will fight it on every possible occasion to make sure that the Hull fishers come out of the scheme.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I beg to second the Motion.
The Port of Goole, unlike the Port of Hull, has no fishing interests and, consequently, has no direct interest in the Order. We feel, however, Hull being a sister-port of Goole's in the Humber, that Hull has a right to have its case heard. It is in that spirit that I second the Motion, the purpose being that a reply may be given by the Government to the case so eloquently put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) and the views of other hon. Members.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: The Motion is the outcome of propaganda launched upon this House by the Hull Fish Merchants' Protection Association. Each hon. Member has had his share of the communications which have emanated from that body.

Captain Hewitson: If the hon. Member will allow me, I would like to declare my interest. For 27 years I have been the trade union official looking after the fishing interests of Hull, including many years before I became a Member of this honourable House.

Mr. Duthie: Be that as it may, I would have thought that the hon. and gallant Member, in moving the Prayer, would have been a little more guarded and temperate in some of the things he said.
Let us consider the White Fish Authority and its history. It came into being in 1951 as a result of the Sea Fish Industry Act. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and I had perhaps as much to do with the Bill as any two back bench Members in the House. Speaking for myself—though I believe it is the case with others who were identified with the beginning of the White Fish Authority—I was very disappointed during the first three years of the Authority's existence by the number of stillborn schemes. Very little was done, but, nevertheless, the idea was there. One


may liken it to a motor car which has great potentialities, but which is not properly manned or properly driven.
There is a vast field for the White Fish Authority to cover. What we have heard tonight from the hon. and gallant Member does not in any way detract from the tremendous problem that must be solved in the fishing industry. Less than two years ago, Sir Louis Chick was appointed Chairman of the White Fish Authority. During the first three years, the great good will which attended the Authority on its inception was largely dissipated. Probably
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick
as far as the industry was concerned. Since Sir Louis Chick took over command, however, there have been indications that the Authority is getting under way. It is moving ahead, slowly perhaps, but still it is showing material signs of progress.
It is quite wrong and unfair for the hon. and gallant Member to say that there is no one in the White Fish Authority who knows anything about fishing. Mr. George Wilson, of Grimsby, for example, is as knowledgeable a man in the fishing industry as anyone in the country. The Advisory Committee would consider it a poor compliment to be characterised in the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member has described those associated with this body. While I am not too happy yet about some of the appointments, the fact remains that the Authority is getting under way.
Let us look at the credit side. We have heard a great deal about the schemes that have not come to anything. Let us consider some of the positive benefits which have come to the industry and to the country through the activities of the Authority. First and foremost is the administration of grants and loans. When the grants and loans scheme came into being in 1946, those of us who were identified with fishing communities pointed out the danger of grants and loans being given to fishermen on application without sufficient vetting. The position concerning grants and loans has been rectified and the Authority is now ensuring that the right type of people are being helped in this way to obtain new vessels and, in due course, engines to replace those that are defective.
That in itself is already paying handsome dividends to the country, and it will go on doing so in increasing measure. The guesswork has been removed from the giving of grants and loans, and the Authority has gone a long way towards ensuring for the country and for the industry, and for the Government and for all of us, that the right man goes into the wheelhouse of a vessel which is obtained under the grants and loans scheme for the white fish industry.
I would be the first to admit that there are not enough port officials on the payroll of the White Fish Authority, but they are an administrative expense, and the hon. and gallant Member is objecting to administrative expense. A way in which I should like to see some of its money spent by the Authority is in the building of strong teams of port officers, linked right round the coast, so that each port and each area has its proper administrative force.
There is another matter on which I join issue with the hon. and gallant Member. He belittled the benefits which the Port of Hull has received. I refer to the education schemes. There is the provision in Section 4 (1, h) of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951
to give financial assistance by way of grant for the maintenance while taking a course of specialized training or education of persons engaged or employed in the white fish industry or intending to be so.
One of the greatest difficulties that beset our fishing ports—and Hull is no exception—is the ensuring of a plentiful supply of the right type of men as skippers and mates. It is quite true that Hull has its own education scheme, but Hull's education scheme does not furnish enough skippers and mates for the requirements of the expanding Hull long-distance trawling industry.
One finds in Hull skippers from all over the country, not a few from Scotland, and the same is true of Grimsby, Milford Haven, Fleetwood and North Shields. Today, the inducements to young people to take jobs ashore are tremendous, and so the men we find in the smaller ports who are going in for fishing are those with family boats on which to rely. The White Fish Authority is starting to do a great service in inducing young men without family boats and family connections with the fishing industry to enter it, and


to look beyond the blandishments of local factory works, hydro-electric schemes, and so on. Most successful courses have been run in the North of Scotland, and no doubt Hull will benefit from them in due course, because of the spendid fishermen being passed into the industry through that means. Skippers are the key men in the industry, and it will require all the efforts of the Authority to ensure the supply of the right type of men.
Advertising has been mentioned. It has been proved conclusively that there is a far greater purchasing of fish by housewives today than there was before the advertising scheme of the Authority was commenced. It is true that the British Trawlers' Federation, and possibly the Hull trawler owners, too, have carried out an extensive advertising scheme, but much of it was—and rightly—for the purpose of making clear to the people of the country how the trawling industry has suffered because of the Icelandic problem. A great deal of that advertising expenditure has gone for that purpose, whereas the White Fish Authority's expenditure on advertising has been for sales promotion.
Why should not the Authority hand over its advertising to an agency? In doing so it showed good sense, ranging itself alongside the best business brains in the country. By whom is the advertising of any big firm which advertises done? By a first-class agency. The Authority was perfectly within its rights to use the services of a first-class agency to put over its publicity schemes.
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his great concern for Scotland. He wished, for one thing, the headquarters of the Authority to travel to Edinburgh. However, we have our own committee in Scotland looking after our interests, and we do not want to be so insular as to deny England her fair share. We are extremely glad that the main body is located in England. Why should it not go to London? It is so much better for us to be in close touch with the body. It is simply a matter of getting in touch with them up the road rather than having to hare off to Knaresborough and indulge in long-distance telephone calls, and those who attend conferences can get down to other

things as well when they are in London. I cannot get away from the thought that the incursion of the Hull fleet merchants here savours of impertinence. The levy is not paid by the merchants. It comes from the "cod end," like everything else in the industry. I should have paid more attention to this agitation if it had emanated from the trawler owners who are the people vitally concerned.
The powers vested in the White Fish Authority by Act of Parliament provided that the levy might be as much as ld. a stone. The Authority has shown reasons why it is advancing that levy from ¼d. to ½d. a stone, and I am sure that there is not one producer from one end of the country to the other who begrudges that increase today. Do the Hull merchants scent a certain amount of danger in the activities of the White Fish Authority and think that, sooner or later, there will be an examination of the tremendous disparity between quayside prices and the prices of fish on the fish merchant's slab? That is the crucial point, and that is a matter which the Hull Fish Merchants' Protection Association should bend their energies towards solving now, because it will become a matter of prime importance, possibly before the House.
I have great hopes that the Authority will achieve the great aims which we held out for it when it came into being and that the House will support Sir Louis Chick and those associated with him in this good work by unanimously rejecting the Prayer.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) made an interesting, destructive and at times amusing speech which he hinged on the Order against which he is praying. He used the opportunity to attack the White Fish Authority. I think the House will regard it as significant that the Prayer was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), representing an inland constituency, who frankly confessed that he has no fishing industries in his constituency and in fact no interest in fish except to eat it. That is indeed a good thing, and I hope that it does him a great deal of good, but it does no good to the Prayer, because the hon. Member, in seconding, did not go into detail and did not adduce any


kind of argument in favour of the proposal that is before the House.
I have criticised the White Fish Authority from time to time, but now that it is attacked in this way it is up to me to say that in my dealings with it, and they have been many, I have always found that the Authority conducts its work with usefulness and expedition and is indeed a great asset to the fishing industry.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West made several aspersions against the White Fish Authority. He said that it is an imitation Government Department. But I cannot see that there is anything wrong with that. Imperial Chemical Industries, the General Electric Company and other great companies might be compared to Government Departments, and, indeed, they might derisively be said to be imitation Government Departments. I am quite sure the House will agree that they are none the worse for that, and that they, too, do their work with efficiency and dispatch.
This White Fish Authority is a statutory authority with statutory powers, and it is right that we should look at it in proper perspective. The hon. and gallant Member described it as a moribund body and then rather inconsistently went on to criticise it for its activities. He cannot have it both ways. It is by no means a moribund body. It is a very useful and effective body which is doing very good work for the fishing industry.
The hon. and gallant Member went on to criticise the advertisement campaign of the White Fish Authority and he pinpointed one advertisement which says "Eat more fish and chips." I cannot see anything wrong with that, and indeed it has the advantage that one cannot eat fish and chips without eating fish, and therefore it is good for the fishing industry.
There is one thing that I would like to say in criticism not so much of the White Fish Authority but of the Statute under which it operates. It seems to me that the White Fish Authority should have more money. It has not enough money to carry out the great and expansive work which it is doing by way of grants and loans for the building of new trawlers.

Mr. Richard Stanley: But that has got nothing to do with it, surely. When did the White Fish Authority, except for administering the grants and loans, raise any money for the building of trawlers?

Mr. Hughes: I am coming to that point in a moment. I am sure the House will agree that the point I have made about the White Fish Authority needing more money for its good work is a good one. It should be put in a position, which it is not in at present, to make loans at a lower rate of interest. It is said that the loans must be on an economic basis—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is straying from the Order which is before us.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Speaker, before you came into the Chair the debate was being conducted upon a very wide front. I am within the recollection of the House, but I submit that if you limit my argument you will be giving those who have spoken before me an advantage which I do not possess.

Mr. Speaker: I think that if the front of the debate were contracted the argument might be more to the point.

Mr. Hughes: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I always bow to your Ruling, and I do not wish to transgress in any way.
I have a good many points along the same line of country—I should not say "of country" ; I should say" of sea" in this debate. In view of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, I will content myself by saying that I think I have said sufficient to show that the Mover of this Prayer has not proved his case against the White Fish Authority and I hope that the Prayer will be rejected.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: As time is limited I will make my remarks very brief. I say straight away that, whether it be on a broad front or on well-rounded phrases, I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson). I am getting sick of this constant sniping at the White Fish Authority. As both sides of the House set up this body, it is only right that we should do all we can to help it.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this was a moribund body. If he had seen the Fishing News for 26th October he would know what the Sea Fishery Officer for Cornwall thinks about it. That paper says:
Cornwall's good fishing year largely due to the W. F. A.
and reports a speech by the Sea Fishery Officer in which he outlined the effects of the various grants and the way in which they had been administered.
Mention has been made of administrative costs and the move to London from Knaresborough. Anyone who went there as I did will know that involved a long and tiresome journey for anyone coming from the south. It is far easier to walk round to Petty France to see the officials concerned.
I am a governor of the Fisheries Organisation Society whose headquarters are in London, and that Society covers many fisheries societies round the coast of Britain. What happens with this so-called moribund organisation? We went to consult its officials this year and, for not less than three hours, we received their help and guidance. I think I am expressing what was felt by all the members of that organisation. They were extremely pleased and grateful for the help and advice given by the Authority.
On the subject of administrative expenses, the Authority's organisation, methods and procedures were surveyed last summer by Messrs. Urwick, Orr and Partners, the well-known firm of management consultants. Their report gives no support at all to those objectors who criticised the Authority's staff as being unnecessarily large. On the contrary, they found the organisation to be essentially sound and recommended an increase in staff and adjustments in the scale of pay of certain categories of staff.
Then there is the question of advertising. As has been said, the British Trawler Federation's advertising, which all of us who take an interest in the industry must know is quite excellent, was firstly beamed towards putting their side of the Icelandic dispute. I think that it did a very fine job. It then went on to other aspects of the industry. Surely it must be the job of the Authority to plan its advertising to help every section of

the industry and to all those people who are interested. If it did not do that it would very soon be criticised. If it did any sort of sectional advertising, such as the hon. and gallant Member appeared to have in mind, it would very soon have these same organisations which are behind the present move after it for not advertising their side of the question.
Again, I do not accept that as a valid criticism that the Authority should employ a first-class advertising agent. The British Trawler Federation does, and we all agree on the success of its advertising. The Authority cannot be criticised for that.
Then there is the question of research. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself said, one cannot expect to be right the first time. Anybody who knows the industry must appreciate that it is one of the most complex in the country. If we please one section, then somebody else says that it is no good. If we please a section in Scotland, people in England think that they are missing something. We cannot expect to turn round, wave a wand and have the whole thing right in three years.
We all know that the Authority got off to a fairly bad start, but it now appears to be a good team. If some hon. Members have had trouble in getting letters answered, I must say that I have not shared in that misfortune. I have called for papers from the Authority and they have been in my hands within a matter of hours, because the office is round the corner and not miles away in Knaresborough. Obviously the Authority has been doing important research work, some of which may be vitally important to the shellfish industry in which fishermen in my constituency are particularly interested. Nothing can be published about that at present, although it may have far-reaching effects, because if something were put into print and it did not materialise immediately, we should hear criticisms of a similar kind to those which we have heard tonight. I should prefer that a little longer time was taken over these matters and something good produced in the long run.
I think the Authority should be given a decent chance. Sir Louis Chick, the chairman, is trying to do a good job, and he took over an appointment which it was difficult to fill. As this House


set up this organisation, I think we should give it a decent run for its money and back it all we can. Therefore I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Prayer.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I desire to say little on this issue. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and other speakers have demolished the arguments advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson). We thoroughly enjoyed the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend. It was a real knock-about turn, but I do not think that it had much relevance to the prosperity or the work of the White Fish Authority. It seemed to be a marvellous advertisement for Hull, but I do not blame my hon. and gallant Friend for that. I have always contended that the best fish come from Lowestoft, and the industry depends on the quality of its fish.

Captain Hewitson: It is no more than a village.

Mr. Evans: It is a good village for all that, and what we sell is very good. But we will not go into invidious comparisons ; my hon. and gallant Friend knows my views on this subject very well.
I think it a great pity that such an important issue as the conduct of the Authority should be brought up at such a late hour in a Prayer. I have constantly asked the Government to give us a day for fishing—[Laughter.]—yes, we might have a day off as well—when we could debate the fishing industry in all its aspects, the White Fish Authority, the herring industry, the question of research, distribution and finance, and also manning, which is one of the greatest of the difficulties.
This matter should not have been brought up in a Prayer by an hon. Member who is distinguished in many ways but who in this matter has not the support of his own party. He did it without consulting the special committee dealing with fishing and without the support of the trade union most concerned with fishing ; indeed, in opposition to it. As a

trade union official himself, I am surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should have taken that attitude.

Captain Hewitson: I can assure my hon. Friend that the organisation which is the second largest in the country supports me in my attitude.

Mr. Evans: And I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the largest organisation in the country is "dead agin it." Furthermore, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, the Hull fishers are not behind this at all. We all know from where this emanates.

Captain Hewitson: The hon. Member is saying something that he knows nothing whatever about.

Mr. Evans: I generally do. But we are impressed by the sudden zeal of the hon. and gallant Member who has taken part in a fishing debate for the first time for a long period. The hon. Member for Banff, who in his excellent speech answered most of the points advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend, said that on looking through the records we should not find the name of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), which indeed we should not expect to find, nor should we find the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West on the occasion of the auspicious debate on the setting up of the Authority.
The only hon. Member who had the courage to oppose the introduction of the Authority on that occasion was the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). We all know that he has the courage of his convictions. He did not know much about the subject, it is true, but he had the courage to support his views in the Division Lobby, and I offered to stand as teller for him.
On this side of the House we take great pride in having set up the White Fish Authority. We may be disappointed at the pace and because it has not achieved as much as we hoped, but I cannot see how we shall help it by crippling its finances. It is like telling a man that because he looks hungry we are going to halve his rations. I agree that there is great benefit in bringing together elements which have always been individualistic and jealous of each other. I have engaged myself, on behalf of the merchants of my constituency, to put to


the House the anxieties of those who have to foot the bill. One of these is the price fixing at the point of first sale.
The hon. Member for Banff has shown that good merchanting can easily recover an increase in the price of fish, and I do not think that the increase would be too small to be passed on to the next buyer as a direct charge. The fact is that the merchants will not sell at 3½d. which is a factor of 14. Do they want the price to be 7d. or 1s. 2d.? Of course they do not. They also say that they cannot put on their invoices the charge to the White Fish Authority. This body has my sympathy, because it has to foot the bill to the trawlers.
It has been suggested that the White Fish Authority should have a subvention from the Government, but we know that the Government will not do that. Proper methods of sale could easily recoup these people. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, West brings tears to my eyes at the plight of the fish merchants of Hull, I remember that the loss does not come out of their pockets but from the people who eat the fish.
A good deal has been said about advertising. We want fish advertised, as I said in the last debate. We do not eat fish specially on Fridays as a penance, as we are not a Catholic country. We want people to eat fish because it is' good food. The advertising of the White Fish Authority takes an entirely different line from that of the British Trawlers' Association. It seems extraordinary that the Association advertises in the Fishing News, and always has done so. We have to get the people of this country fish-minded enough to eat good quality fish. The money which the White Fish Authority distributes goes to improving the quality of fish. My hon. and gallant Friend is disappointed at the pace. Cutting of supplies of finance will not help the Authority to increase the pace.
I am sure that the House will reject the Prayer, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not have the temerity to divide the House. But I hope the Government will give us an opportunity to debate this vital industry. Do not let us be fobbed off by a debate on subsidies or a debate on a Motion such as that moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. Let us have a good debate on

an industry which is most important not only from the point of view of food but also from the strategic point of view—an industry which has all the best traditions of the British way of life.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: I listened with very close attention to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson), because I, too, represent a constituency in Hull. Hull has been mentioned several times this evening, and I think we ought at least to have a balanced view of that great port in the House. Very briefly, I want to put rather a different point of view from that of the hon. and gallant Member.
He recalled his speech on Second Reading in January, 1951, and referred to the misgivings which he then expressed, but I, too, recall his speech, and I recall that his misgivings were not on the ground that we were going too far but on the ground that we were not going far enough. He advocated wholesale nationalisation. When I challenged him in my subsequent remarks on that occasion, he did not deny it. Tonight he is taking a rather different point of view.
I can follow him a little in this respect, however, for on that occasion I tried to put the case for the distant-water trawler owners. I then advocated that they should be excluded from the scheme, because they were a highly efficient body and needed no assistance—and that applies today. They do not need assistance. They do not approve of the increased levy, and they realise that any benefit which Hull gets will be extremely small in proportion to the amount which they have to pay, but they accept it, realising that it is for the benefit of other sections of the industry, and are not greatly concerned about it.
Any increase is unpalatable. This increase is unpalatable. I want to suggest one way in which it might be made more palatable to the Port of Hull. If hon. Members refer to the Report of the White Fish Authority they will find these words on page 17:
One important matter is the condition of premises, and there are, in addition, a number of longer-range issues such as the improvement of the fish docks themselves, the better use of available dock space … that require attention as opportunity offers.


Opportunity is offering in Hull now in respect of the fish docks. The Hull fish dock is in a most deplorable state. Recently there has been a serious collapse of one of the walls. We have no slipway capable of taking any of our modern trawlers or, indeed, some of the not-so-modern trawlers. I think I am in order in referring to that matter, Mr. Speaker, because it is in the Report. I commend that point to the House—and, with that, I sit down.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I rise for a moment in order to say a few words in support of asking hon. Members to reject this Prayer. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson) referred to the fact that those of us who remember the setting up of the White Fish Authority recall that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) at that time spoke about giving the White Fish Authority more authority and the ultimate nationalisation of the whole industry. But I was rather surprised when he moved the Prayer—and it was, without doubt, a most eloquent speech—that it was mainly in defence of the extreme efficiency of private enterprise in Hull.
I was delighted to hear those remarks, but at the same time I was rather upset at his very critical attitude towards the White Fish Authority. I think that all who took part in the debate setting up this Authority fully realised the difficulties and problems that would confront it when it was set up. During its teething pains it may well be that it did not move as swiftly as most of us would have desired. On the other hand, I think that many of us realised the problems that beset it. Now, at the present time, as has been rightly said from this side, it is rather more grown up and doing things at last.
The hon. Member for Hull, West criticised the Authority on one point especially—that it did not reply when written to. That has not been my experience.

Captain Hewitson: Perhaps I could put the hon. Member right on that. I did not wish to convey to the House the impression that I had written to the White Fish Authority. I have never written to

it. The people who have written to the White Fish Authority were the Hull merchants.

Mr. Marshall: I see. I presume the hon. and gallant Member is anaware of the contents of the letter. It may well be that there was no reason to reply to what they wrote.
I think that at times all hon. Members are not fully aware of the many difficult things which confront the Authority. I had a case not very long ago where difficulties arose—extreme difficulties between two operations of the fishing industry, and there was a clash of views. In fact, within 24 hours there was to be a strike. I got on to the White Fish Authority in London. Some of the people concerned were at that time in Edinburgh, not London. I telephoned Edinburgh and, in three hours, had arranged a meeting between the White Fish Authority and the two parties concerned, avoided a strike, and got agreement. That was due to the Authority.
There is much that one would like to develop on this subject, but I do not wish to delay the House. I do wish, however, to see to it that this Prayer is rejected.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: Just before the Minister replies I should like to add my voice to the many that have asked him not to accept the Prayer. I think that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) was really ludicrously one-sided, even for a statement from Hull—and he said that Hull liked to be the odd man out in these matters. My own merchants in Grimsby have spoken to me about this. They do not like the rise in the levy, but they have not spoken of taking the extreme action mentioned by my hon. Friend, let alone spoken of taking this absurd step of opting out of the scheme.
I think that the Authority is doing an important job, it is doing a good job, and should be given enough money to carry on its activities.

11.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I am glad that I waited to have those comments


from the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), which add substantially to those from this side of the House. And I thank my hon. Friends for the admirable arguments which they have put forward, which have really completely demolished the case put by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson). I listened to his eloquence, but I also listened to the admirable replies given to him by my hon. Friends the Members for Banff (Mr. Duthie), for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), for Hull. North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson), for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), with his great knowledge of the fishing industry, and by the Hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). One and all, they have dealt with his argument and have really roundly castigated him. That has spared me saying, as I would otherwise have felt obliged to say, some pretty terse words to him about what he said of the White Fish Authority. It really was not fair, and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. and gallant Member will agree with that.
What we are concerned with here is the provision of money for an Authority which has an extremely difficult job to do, and one which all of us who are interested in the fishing industry want done. Whatever the hon. and gallant Member may have in his mind about how this could be better done for the industry as a whole, he has certainly not disclosed it tonight. What he has demonstrated is one of the basic difficulties and weaknesses of the industry, and that is sectionalism. It is one of the primary difficulties in dealing with the real problems of the industry. The hon. and gallant Member could not have given us a better example of it.
However, I will not go into detail in dealing with the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for I feel that they have been admirably dealt with. I entirely agree with the admirable reply made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff. I would only add that I cannot quite agree that the levy is paid only by the catchers of the fish. I think it is paid by everybody—those who catch it, the merchants, those who retail it and the

consumers as well. Nobody can say exactly where the incidence falls.
On a small point in the hon. and gallant Member's speech, I would say that his remarks about the "Northern Wave" were not really fair. The "Northern Wave" was chartered only for one series of voyages, and it is natural that the experimental machinery should now be dismantled. She has done valuable work, and I do not doubt that as a result of it there will be considerable benefit to the industry.
I was grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lowestoft. He must have felt a slight twinge when he looked back three years to the Motion that he moved praying that we should not reduce the subsidy from ½d. to ¼d. I am glad that he, at any rate, has been consistent, even if his hon. and gallant Friend has forgotten the view taken by the Labour Party at that time.
I very much welcomed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, which gave a much truer perspective of the general view of the industry in Hull. I certainly feel that the Hull industry would not take such a sectional view as the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West does.
I should like to say a word or two about the Authority. I have not time to enumerate the many useful jobs that it does and the many valuable functions that it performs. These will be found in the Report which hon. Members have. I am certain that, from that, hon. Members will agree with me that the Authority has done a great deal of valuable work. I was particularly glad to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and St. Ives speak of the progress which they had discerned during the last two years since the arrival of the new chairman. I am sure that will be most encouraging for him in his difficult task.
In closing, I should like to say a word about what I think is the really basic problem with which the Authority, and no one else, can deal. The fact is—this follows the line taken by the hon. Member for Lowestoft—that fish is an optional food. As this is not a Roman Catholic country, it is not even compulsory for us on Fridays. The fish fryers take about half the distant water fish, but when the rest reaches the shops it is largely an


optional food for the housewives. There are other foods offered which housewives may take according to their choice at any given time. The result is that they do not buy fish more than occasionally unless the quality and the price are particularly attractive.
Fish is sold in retail shops in competition with many other attractive foods. These days the tendency is for more and more foods to be offered in standard qualities and in attractive packages, with big national advertising campaigns which continually press their benefits upon the housewives. I think particularly of cereal breakfast foods. In pre-war days, people quite often ate fish for breakfast, but it is not eaten anything like as often now. One of its main competitors is the uncooked breakfast foods, which, supported by a tremendous advertising campaign, are attractively arranged and well put over to the housewife. In this context, one sees immediately the great contrast of the variability in quality, and sometimes also in presentation, of fish ; this indicates the measure of the handicap that fish has to bear in competing with these other foods which are offered in uniform, standard qualities.
We all know that by the very nature of things to bring a daily supply of high-quality fish on to the slab at all is a major achievement. To get it there at competitive prices is a great credit to the industry. Most fish which is caught has to be brought long distances often hundreds of miles away from our shores, and the fish does not swim about in nicely-graded shoals. They are all shapes and sizes. Once caught, it is a flesh which quickly loses its attractive flavour and is highly perishable. So that the whole business of getting the fish to the housewife in an attractive, uniformly graded condition is a difficult one.
A great deal has been done—do not let me leave any impression behind that it has not—with great credit to those who have done it. In the catching part of the industry, especially in the distant water fleet, the modern vessels, with their quicker voyages and more rapid return with the fish, have in the last few years reduced voyages by two or three days. There are quick-freezing developments, and the new fish sticks, which are going extremely well, are all helping in the direction of catching the housewife's

custom. In addition, there is the great national publicity campaign which the Authority has directed particularly to the consumer end and which the B. T. F. is now directing to that end also. There is room for both.
It is interesting to see that sales went up in 1955 by 4 per cent. and in the first half of this year they were up by no less than 7½ per cent. in quantity and well over 8 per cent. by value. There is no doubt at all that this great advertising campaign is really giving results ; but very much still remains to be done.
The fact is, as has been said tonight, that the fishing industry is not one industry, but a whole collection of industries. It is composed of highly individualistic people, as we have heard tonight from the hon. and gallant Member, in all sections, and they do not always co-operate too easily. They need an Authority which will co-ordinate, and co-operate in bringing these sections together in order to make more effective the linking of the chain from catching the fish to the point when it reaches the counter, and so that it will reach the counter in uniform grades of quality, at competitive prices and as fresh as possible.
That is the aim of everybody in the industry, but there is still very much to be done if we are really to make the fish as competitive as we would like it to be to catch the housewife's custom in competition with all the many other foods that are out to gain her custom. It should be remembered that even in Hull, large quantities of good fish often have to go to the meal factory because they cannot be found a market for human consumption.
I ask the House to reject the Prayer and to provide the Authority with the money that it needs to go on with the job for which it alone is peculiarly well suited and constituted to carry out.

Captain Hewitson: After hearing the views of both sides of the House, and still very unrepentant, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.